reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Former members of the Israeli Defense Force express concern over the recent attack by Hamas on Israel. They highlight the advanced technology and heavily secured borders of the Israeli military, yet question how Hamas fighters were able to breach the border and carry out their operation without any defense from the Israeli military. They suggest that the government may have intentionally allowed this attack to happen. Footage released by Hamas shows the destruction caused and the lack of response from the Israeli Defense Force. The speakers believe there is a nefarious agenda at play, as evidenced by a letter demanding an invasion of Gaza and the removal of Palestinian presence from the map shown by Prime Minister Netanyahu.

In the video, the speaker discusses the discovery of tunnels and an underground city built by Hamas in Gaza. They mention that every school, mosque, and many houses have access to these tunnels. The speaker argues that destroying the entire Gaza area is a solution to eliminate the underground tunnel network used by terrorists to hide and store ammunition. They ask if there is an alternative solution to destroy this tunnel city. The video ends with a mention of rockets being fired on Israel.

The speaker claims the test for Israel is whether it's defending itself or the occupation. If Israel withdraws to its internationally recognized boundaries, then it has the right to self-defense if Hamas launches rockets. However, until Israel withdraws to its internationally recognized border, Hamas has the right under international law to use armed force to achieve its independence and statehood. The speaker says one cannot fault Hamas or the Palestinians for refusing to accept their annexation. The blockade of Gaza is a double violation of international law. The speaker asks if Gazans are supposed to allow Israel to suffocate them to death and if they are obliged to lay down and die. The speaker states that 95% of the water in Gaza is not fit for human consumption and asks if they are supposed to accept it.

The speaker questions whether Israel's response to conflict is reasonable, proportionate, and moral. They criticize Britain's obsession with the concept of proportionality, arguing that it rarely exists in conflicts. They sarcastically suggest that if proportionality were to be strictly followed, Israel should retaliate by committing acts of violence equivalent to those committed by Hamas. The speaker dismisses the idea of proportionality in conflict as a joke and a strange British concept, highlighting the expectation for Israel to respond proportionately when attacked.

The speaker questions the existence of Israel's right to defend itself and challenges the notion of an occupation's right to defend against resistance. They argue that Gaza is occupied by Israel and highlight the control Israel has over various aspects of life in Gaza. The speaker criticizes the US for its actions in Syria and accuses both Israel and the US of disregarding international law. They condemn the violence and brutality displayed by Israel and the US, and suggest that Western supremacy and colonialist imperialism are at play in the conflict. The speaker concludes by asserting that future generations will disavow the current generation's support for Israel.

Hamas and Israel are engaged in a conflict, with Israel claiming it is defending itself and blaming Hamas for the situation. However, there are concerns about Israel's actions, as they have expressed willingness to harm the entire population of Gaza. Israel argues that it warns people to leave targeted areas, but it is unclear where they expect people to go. News agencies are urged to critically examine the ongoing campaign, which includes attacks on hospitals and schools. The speaker questions whether Hamas is truly using these facilities as hiding spots. The United Nations' role in the conflict is discussed, with a resolution for a ceasefire from the general assembly, although it is the security council resolutions that hold more weight.

We are not targeting anyone else in Gaza but civilians. Hamas is a terrorist organization. We are the victims, not the aggressors. There is no moral equivalence.

The speaker discusses the need to destroy certain areas in Gaza due to the presence of tunnels and an underground city built by Hamas with support from Iran, Qatar, and the international community. They mention that every school, mosque, and second house in Gaza has access to these tunnels, making it a hub for terrorist activities. The speaker asks if there is an alternative solution to destroy this underground tunnel city, which is where terrorists hide and store ammunition used to launch rockets at Israel.

The speaker questions whether Israel's response to conflict is reasonable, proportionate, and moral. They criticize Britain's obsession with the concept of proportionality, arguing that it rarely exists in conflicts. They sarcastically suggest that if proportionality were to be strictly followed, Israel should retaliate by committing acts of violence equivalent to those committed by Hamas. The speaker dismisses the idea of proportionality in conflict as a joke and a strange British concept, highlighting the expectation for Israel to have a precisely proportionate response when attacked.

The conversation began with Mario interviewing Pepe and discussing a developing story about comments and reporting around Israel and Pakistan. A producer said people in Pakistan were sending screenshots from TV coverage, and Mario noted that his prior Pakistan appearances were often “about Imran Khan,” but this time it gained positive traction and attracted “a lot of people talking.” Mario and his guest then focused on the reports Pepe provided and that they both discussed yesterday: that Israelis were looking into or potentially considering an assassination strike on Pakistani leaders, including General Asim Munir. The guest described Pakistan’s global intelligence network and argued that Pakistani services likely tapped into information through many channels, saying Pakistanis are highly educated and monitor conversations. He said he was told that information included that Bibi Netanyahu personally ordered efforts to put Muneer “in his place,” potentially including killing him, and that Pakistani intelligence took precautions. He added that if Israel attempted an assassination attempt, it would be expected to happen in Pakistan so blame could be shifted to a local dissident group, and he said General Muneer was aware and precautions were taken. They then shifted to broader regional developments and Pakistan’s role in coordinating security and diplomatic efforts, describing cooperation that included Iran. The guest said Pakistan and Iran had reduced high-profile Iranian leader assassinations after Pakistan directly approached Iranians with information about how Israel targeted them and what steps to take. He also described a chain of phone calls and guarantees related to a deal in which Muneer spoke to MBS in Saudi Arabia, with Qatar also agreeing, leading to the deal moving forward despite uncertainty tied to US involvement. He also mentioned a Pakistani foreign minister-organized meeting in Cairo with Egypt, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia to form “foundations” of a new Persian Gulf security architecture. He framed a motivation as ensuring access to oil for Pakistan and its needs. Mario asked whether Israelis would conduct such operations without American approval, and the guest said Israel “doesn’t always come seek permission” and sometimes does what it wants without regard to whether the United States cares. Mario referenced the Qatar attack and argued that prior red lines appeared to be crossed, making the idea of an Israeli strike in Qatar seem less surprising than earlier. Next, they discussed reports about Lebanon and Syria. Mario cited a Ynet report that Netanyahu would hold security consultations about concerns over possible Syrian forces entering Lebanon following Trump’s remarks. The guest responded that he considered it logistically implausible for al-Shara, with “barely existing” military capacity, to execute such actions, arguing that complex logistics and resupply could not be done overnight. They also noted that even if buildups were not reported in the press, other states and intelligence systems would monitor them, with Hezbollah and Iran receiving intelligence. Mario then said monitoring would focus on logistics, equipment, and supply lines on the Lebanese-Syrian border. On the Iranian side, the conversation turned to mixed statements around the MOU and the Strait of Hormuz. The guest described Iran’s foreign ministry spokesperson issuing a statement that mistrust remains due to contradictory US messages, referencing vigilance based on past experiences. Mario discussed Trump’s claims that Iran would not charge tolls, insurance costs, or other charges for ships traveling the Strait of Hormuz, while also stating the US would release some of Iran-controlled funds for US-purchased food for Iranian farmers and ranchers. The guest said Iran was skeptical of US messaging. They also discussed the IAEA—US assertions about inspectors and Iran’s reported rejection of plans to grant access—along with a reported figure that the Trump administration sought $672 million to eliminate Iran’s nuclear-materials fund, support IAEA inspections, and expand counter-proliferation efforts. They then moved to shipping and oil flows. Mario said shipping firms were willing to move but hesitant to return to refilling, due to uncertainty and concern that the war could restart. He referenced marine tracking showing limited destinations and said oil production claims did not reflect full flows. He explained oil tanker types (Suez class and VLCC), questioned the “19 million barrels” figure by comparing it to daily pre-war exports from the Strait of Hormuz (about 20 million) and claimed current outgoing amounts were “10 to 15 million.” They discussed ceasefires in Lebanon, an Iran-US MOU, and the idea that oil prices had been supported partly by China drawing down its reserves. The guest and Mario said markets may have priced recovery, but shipping behavior suggested continued uncertainty. The discussion also included energy policy and diesel/jets concerns, citing a detailed message from an operator describing Chris Wright as “badly out of his depth,” asserting the US faces a diesel, jet fuel, and crude oil positioning crisis, and that the US’s reliance on certain crude quality affects refinery outputs and stock levels. On Lebanon negotiations, Mario described Lebanese army concerns about Israeli proposals for pilot zones in areas the IDF did not control, saying the Lebanese government wanted focus on territory under IDF control and that meetings were “ugly.” They also discussed controversy over the Lebanese delegation refusing to take an official opening photo with the US state department delegation. The conversation then returned to Turkey. Mario described Erdogan’s speech criticizing Israel and Trump’s remarks calling Erdogan a friend who stayed out of the war, including Erdogan’s NATO role and the F-35/F-110 engine saga. They discussed claims that Turkey wanted F-110 engines and F-35s and US efforts to certify Turkey’s compliance with American law, with a claim that Israel would be “livid” if Turkey received F-35s. The guest argued that even if Turkey pursued alternatives, the F-35 deal could become leverage and might depend on Netanyahu’s behavior. Mario and the guest also referenced political and media issues: they discussed alleged shifts against Israel in Democratic and Republican voices and mentioned New York City congressional primary outcomes involving candidates supported by APAC or linked to other political networks. They ended with discussion of a reported book excerpt involving alleged calls between Trump and Netanyahu, including a claim that Trump told Netanyahu “all the jews are sick of you” while pushing acceptance of a Gaza peace plan, and they debated who the information source might be. The recap concluded with additional plans for upcoming guests and topics, including Iran-related discussions, Middle East actors, and other current events.

The discussion says Hamas is sending missiles into Israel, and some missiles are coming from populated areas. It claims that Hamas used money that came into Gaza for construction purposes, including roads and other needs, but also used some of that money to build sophisticated tunnels into Israel for military purposes for survival purposes. The conversation then shifts to Israel’s right to resist. A question is described as being fair and an answer is given that emphasizes “Israel has a right to resist,” with repeated confirmations that Israel’s right to resist applies. There are arguments about interrupting, control of the microphone, and whether a discussion can proceed democratically, with calls to “come down” and allow discussion “with people.” The speaker insists on answering the question and says the exchange is “called democracy,” while complaining that the process was not fair and that the speaker would like to hear the other person’s point of view. The segment ends with a request not to be disturbed.

Israel is accused of trying to erase Gaza's population, not just defeat Hamas. The speaker criticizes the lack of condemnation for Israeli war crimes by interviewers, highlighting a perceived double standard. The interviewer defends Israel's actions as responses to terrorism, while the speaker argues that killing civilians for a political cause constitutes terrorism, regardless of the perpetrator. The discussion revolves around the need for consistent moral principles in evaluating violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Israeli soldier is asked how many Palestinians he has killed. He responds with 20 and claims all in Gaza are Hamas, including children. The questioner questions the soldier about killing children and asks what type of gun was used.

The discussion centers on claims that Hamas is sending missiles into Israel and that some missiles are coming from populated areas. The speaker says Hamas used money that came into Gaza for construction purposes—such as roads and other needs—and also used some of that money to build “very sophisticated tunnels” into Israel for military purposes and “for survival purposes.” The conversation turns into an argument about Israel’s right to resist. The speaker repeatedly affirms “Israel has a right to resist,” saying that if people do not accept this, they “don’t” understand the premise. Multiple interruptions occur as the speaker tries to answer a question that was asked. The exchange becomes focused on control of the microphone and who is allowed to speak. The speaker insists they are answering the question and objects to being “interrupted” or “disturbed.” Another participant challenges the interaction by arguing about the need for open discussion, describing a desire to “discuss it with people” and urging the other person to come down and be “democratic.” The speaker characterizes their ongoing responses as part of “democracy,” stating that the question was asked and they are answering it, and asking to be allowed to “let him finish.” The transcript ends with the speaker saying they do not want to be disturbed or interrupted while continuing their response.

Speaker 0 asserts that Bezalel Smotrich and Ben Gavir are “literally talking about exterminating the entire population of Gaza.” Speaker 1 counters that they are not talking about extermination. Speaker 0 insists the statements are brazen, up front, and what they actually want to do. Speaker 0 adds that Hamas is involved in a separate context. Speaker 0 says, “The West Bank had nothing to do with what happened on October 7, but they're annexing that land anyway. They're raining terror on innocent people, innocent Palestinians.” Speaker 0 concedes, “I am willing to admit, because it's the truth, that what Hamas did on October 7 was a fucking atrocity,” specifically mentioning killing innocent people. Speaker 1 challenges acknowledgement of atrocities against civilians in Gaza. Speaker 0 asks about a hospital being tapped; Speaker 1 responds that it’s an old terrorist trick and they do it “all the time.” Speaker 0 asks whether the IDF's action was wrong. Speaker 1 concedes, “I'm sure they have committed what we would call war crimes, as every army does in every war.” Speaker 0 notes, “Including our own.” Speaker 1 agrees, giving the Civil War example: Sherman burned Atlanta and Vad, arguing that despite brutality, the North were the good guys fighting slavery, and also noting Israel is fighting to survive and is the front line in the Western world. Speaker 0 disputes this, saying much of the problems in the Middle East come from an expansionist policy and that if Israel wasn’t trying to continue expanding, they would not be dealing with the enemies they’re dealing with. Speaker 1 disagrees that they ever were expanding, arguing they “were attacked” and that they “never been trying to expand.” Speaker 0 claims Israel is trying to annex the West Bank, southern Lebanon, and Syria, and argues they have succeeded in doing so. Speaker 1 says these are lands where they were attacked from when Israel became a country in 1947; he claims Israel said, “we will accept half a loaf,” and asserts they had as much right to that land as anybody, with a historical presence since a thousand BC when King David had a lineage. Speaker 0 dismisses this lineage-based argument as irrelevant to the present. Speaker 1 counters that it’s relevant, and asserts that the notion of wiping out innocent people merely because one’s ancestors lived there centuries ago is not acceptable. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 calling Palestinians colonizers, and Speaker 1 arguing they are not colonizers; they assert that Israel is annexing land, which, in their view, is described as colonization.

The speaker discusses the right to self-defense, emphasizing that it is often mentioned when the oppressed party is attacked, but rarely acknowledged for the other side. They highlight the occupation of Palestinians by Israelis in Gaza, describing it as a prison controlled by the occupiers. The speaker points out that while the Palestinians are occupied, the Israelis are in a position of power. They argue that the right to defend oneself against oppression and occupation is recognized, but it is always emphasized from the Israeli perspective and not the Palestinian side.

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."

Images of babies lacking fuel and resources in a hospital in Shifah are circulating worldwide. The journalist asks if the Israeli soldiers will consider the humanitarian crisis in the Palestinian enclave. The Israeli soldier responds by stating that they are a democratic army defending Israel and all its citizens, regardless of their religion. They argue that the Hamas has also killed Muslims and that their operation is not bound by international law. The journalist questions whether entering a hospital aligns with international humanitarian rules, to which the soldier responds that hospitals should not be used as military bases. The journalist accuses the soldier of behaving like the Hamas, and the soldier requests respect. The conversation ends abruptly.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss a sequence of war-related scenarios, making provocative comparisons and extreme claims about Israel, Hamas, and broader conflicts. Speaker 0 asserts that if Mexico occupied their land and then decided to cut off electricity and control inputs, it would be akin to Israel’s actions against Palestinians; he imagines a scenario where an occupying force could slaughter people for allegedly throwing rocks. Speaker 1 counters by noting Israel has nuclear weapons and that the world’s military power backs Israel. Speaker 0 asserts that Israel has nuclear weapons and that they do not use them, while Speaker 1 suggests Hamas would use a nuclear weapon in seconds if they had one, stating three seconds as the answer because it’s in Hamas’s charter. Speaker 0 asks how anyone could know that, and Speaker 1 cites the charter as justification. Speaker 0 argues that Hamas would be martyrs if they used a nuclear weapon against Israel, describing Hamas as having a death-cult view and noting that they strap suicide vests sometimes on children. He says people cannot see the moral difference between Hamas and Israel. Speaker 1 pushes back, saying they are not talking about extermination and notes that Basilel Smotrich and Ben Gavir have talked about exterminating the entire population of Gaza, while Speaker 0 claims the West Bank is another example and states that despite the West Bank having nothing to do with October 7, it is being annexed and that terror is being rained on innocent Palestinians, driving them from their homes. Speaker 0 acknowledges that what Hamas did on October 7 was a “fucking atrocity,” killing innocent people. He says he is willing to admit that atrocity, but he emphasizes his belief that the atrocities against civilians in Gaza are also significant. Speaker 1 concedes that the IDF and all armies commit war crimes in war and that “all wars are going to have atrocity.” Speaker 0 asks for acknowledgment of a double tap on a hospital; Speaker 1 describes the hospital incident as an old terrorist trick and confirms that such acts occur in war, but he emphasizes that all wars involve atrocities. The exchange references first responders and a vague memory of the event, with Speaker 0 asserting that first responders’ deaths and hospital strikes are part of the ongoing discussion, while Speaker 1 frames them within the broader context of war crimes by all sides. Overall, the dialogue juxtaposes occupation, nuclear deterrence, and moral atrocity claims on both sides, with explicit references to statements by Israeli political figures, Hamas, and the general conduct of war by all parties.

Hamas is accused of using civilians as shields, but the other speaker disagrees and highlights the suffering of the people in Gaza due to the blockade. The first speaker doubts this is happening and calls for prosecution of those targeting civilians. The second speaker questions why Israel is not being blamed for the situation and suggests targeting Hamas like how Bin Laden was approached. The first speaker accuses the second of filibustering and not answering the question.

The speaker acknowledges the existence of tunnels under the hospital but questions their purpose as they did not appear to be a command center. The other speaker asserts that they know it was a command center because they witnessed it and have information from Hamas terrorists. The first speaker explains that it is normal to question in a democracy and they want to know if the hospital was used as a human shield. The second speaker accuses the first of trying to undermine their position and states that Israel is at war with Hamas. They believe questioning the number of casualties and the location of tunnels undermines Israel's position in the war imposed on them.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about condemning the killing of civilians. Speaker 1 defends Israel's actions, claiming they have the right to defend themselves. Speaker 0 argues that terrorists also claim the same right. Speaker 1 disagrees, stating that Hamas and Bin Laden were not defending themselves. Speaker 0 questions how an occupier can defend itself in the first place. Speaker 1 tries to respond but is interrupted. Speaker 0 continues to argue that an occupier cannot claim self-defense. Speaker 1 acknowledges Israel's mistakes but defends their actions against terror attacks. Speaker 0 questions if killing civilians is justified, and Speaker 1 argues that Hamas can be targeted if they hide among the public. Speaker 0 dismisses this argument as a fallacy and questions the necessity of bombing densely populated areas.

Israel claims to have better protections for human life in Gaza than any conflict England was involved in. They deny that children are dying of hunger. Israel states that Gaza is a combat zone with a terrorist organization hiding behind civilians, and Gazans should be allowed to flee. Blocking them aids Hamas in using them as human shields. When asked why Gazans can't flee into Israel, it was stated that "they are our enemies." According to international treaties about refugees in wartime, you don't let them conquer your country with refugees.

The speaker discusses the dismantling of Hamas and argues that if Hamas is to be dismantled for its actions, then the Israeli government should also be dismantled multiple times for its own actions. They mention past operations and the number of Israeli hostages, as well as the number of casualties in Gaza. The speaker emphasizes the need for a single standard and asks for the speaker's opinion on the matter.

- Shortly before the attack, the government allegedly ordered the removal of all military presence from the area, giving Hamas a “free pass” to enter and begin their operation. In the following videos, former Israeli Defense Force (IDF) members warn that something very concerning is happening in Israel. - Afat Fenningzon reports, dated 10/07/2023, that Israeli defense forces around Gaza were instead positioned around the West Bank due to security concerns, leaving the Gaza envelope unoccupied. He says about 60 to 80% of that area was left without IDF forces. He notes that a year earlier there was a Gaza operation to prepare for such events, and ongoing trainings for these scenarios exist. This raises questions about Israeli intelligence: two years ago there were successful deployments of underground barriers with sensors to alert on terrorist breaches, yet there was zero response to the border and fence breaching. He emphasizes that Israel has a highly advanced military and questions how there could be no indication of what was coming, given that a cat moving near a fence would trigger forces. He asks, “What happened to the strongest army in the world? How come border crossings were wide open?” He describes the chain of events as very unusual and not typical for the Israeli defense system. He calls the current government highly corrupt and asserts the previous one was no better, stating his goal is to expose evil forces. He characterizes the surprise attack as seemingly a planned operation on all fronts and, if he were a conspiracy theorist, would say it feels like the work of the deep state. He suggests the people of Israel and the people of Palestine have been sold to “higher powers,” acknowledging how difficult the reality is to fathom. - Speaker 2 questions how the strongest army and the most sophisticated intelligence in the world could allow a few hundred Hamas fighters to enter Israel and cause the attack, while Hamas fighters did not meet any Israeli resistance in the area. He asserts it is not logical and implies there is more behind it, suggesting Israel sacrificed its own people and civilians on the Gaza border, removed protection and the army, and allowed Hamas to carry out their actions. He reiterates that Israel has the most sophisticated intelligence and a strong army, yet such an incursion occurred, implying hidden mechanisms or plans at work.