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.

Israel is on the path to a strategic defeat in Gaza. The speaker, a former marine corps officer and lawyer, explains that Israel's focus on gaining small territories through violence is backfiring. The world is witnessing the atrocities committed by Israel, which has turned public opinion against them. Despite the high civilian casualties, Israel has not achieved any strategic objectives such as freeing hostages, eliminating Hamas leaders, or destroying Hamas. As a result, Israel will eventually be forced to stop and face consequences for its actions, being recognized as a genocidal state and its leaders and soldiers prosecuted for war crimes. Ultimately, Israel's failure to achieve meaningful strategic goals will lead to its defeat.

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.

Speaker argues the Israeli hard-right government has a mandate to ethnically cleanse Gaza, saying, "they're gonna try to ethnically cleanse Gaza," and to "remove 2,500,000 people from there." He adds, "the idea that they need to have a true truce or a peace treaty, that's morally crap after you see women and children be burned alive and dragged to the streets." He cites pattern recognition—"COVID, Maui fires, you know, Epstein"—and says his gut instinct is reliable. "I've been to Israel many times." He calls the country a fortress and notes "the whole country is surveilled." He claims "The last nine months, Israel is on the brink of civil war," with "hundreds of thousands of Israelis taking to the streets because Bibi Netanyahu was basically redefining the Israeli constitution"—"That’s not an exaggeration." Netanyahu has "an emergency government and a mandate to lead," and he asks, "Was there a stand down order?"

Speaker 1 says the Gaza crisis raises motive questions and a possible 'stand down order'—six hours or more—while noting Israel is a fortress with a surveilled border. He recalls Israel’s nine months of near civil war over Netanyahu’s judicial overhaul, and that Netanyahu now has an emergency government. He suggests internal betrayal or 'bad agents' within the government or IDF whispers, arguing 'this is the closest thing to the Holocaust that any of us have lived through.' He warns the hard-right government has a mandate to 'go seek justice and revenge' and may attempt to 'ethnically cleanse Gaza' of '2,500,000 people.' He states, 'The answer is it shouldn't be a top priority to the American government because we have so many problems here to execute a CIA coup d'etat in another country.' He cautions against a wider war—'bombing Iranian oil depots' could draw in Russia and China, risking escalation, and notes past wars like the Six Day War and Yom Kippur War as context.

The speaker states that the situation in Gaza is not a humanitarian crisis, but a genocide. They claim that 70% of those killed are women and children, and the population is being starved of food, water, and medicine. According to the speaker, there have been repeated attacks on hospitals, clinics, aid distribution sites, and humanitarian aid agencies. They state that more UN workers have been killed in Gaza than in UN's history, over 900 families have been exterminated, and over 17,000 children have lost one or both parents. The speaker claims bakeries, aid distribution sites, churches, mosques, and schools are being targeted, including a hospital the speaker personally worked at, a rehabilitation center, and an orphanage. The speaker believes Israel's strategy suggests they are doing the exact opposite of sustaining life. The speaker is afraid of what will be discovered when the conflict ends and believes history books will be written about the media's role in the genocide.

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.

The speaker discusses the military option and its consequences, stating that deliberate choices have led to disproportionate casualties among Palestinians. They argue that there is a confusion between Hamas and all Palestinians, and that the bombings have caused irreparable damage. The speaker estimates that there have been between 20,000 and 30,000 Palestinian deaths, with four times as many injured. They describe the situation as a carnage and emphasize the disproportionate nature of the conflict. Another speaker counters by mentioning the Israeli army's efforts to protect civilians and secure humanitarian corridors. The first speaker dismisses these claims, highlighting the desperation and helplessness of Palestinians in the face of bombings. Experts interviewed agree that this is one of the worst bombardments of the 21st century.

I was born in the heart of Hamas leadership and witnessed their disregard for Palestinian lives. I realized I couldn't support them if they became rulers and destroyed Israel. Now, after 25 years, they rule Gaza and we see their capabilities. Israel didn't start this war, Hamas did. We should encourage civilians to leave Gaza, cut the strip into two parts, and impose a solid siege to deplete and starve the enemy. We may need to consider using gas in the tunnels, but timing is crucial. After destroying the tunnels, we must remove Hamas from power and replace them with the Palestinian Authority, Egyptian government, or Arab League. Aid should only be considered once Gaza is free from Hamas. The Palestinian people just want a normal life, without missiles launched from populated areas. We can't convince protesters who support Hamas, but it's important to defeat this brutal terrorist organization.

The speaker discusses the dire situation in Gaza due to Israel's war, highlighting the high number of Palestinian casualties and the extensive damage to infrastructure. They emphasize the deliberate use of starvation and diseases as weapons of war, leading to a humanitarian crisis. The speaker calls for an immediate, sustainable, and comprehensive ceasefire, along with international efforts to address Gaza's urgent needs and rebuild the area. They stress the importance of accountability and the need for a political and legal solution to the conflict. The speaker also mentions the ongoing legal cases against Israel at the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. They express hope for a change in international leadership and a renewed commitment to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

This is not a war with Hamas, but rather a war of annihilation against Palestinians in Gaza. There are two objectives: to expel Palestinians, which has failed, and if they can't be expelled, to murder them. The bombings are indiscriminate, killing many to target one Hamas figure. This is a ruthless and grotesque crime against humanity. It is causing Israel and the United States, who supports Israel, to face significant international criticism.

The Israeli government under Benjamin Netanyahu has failed in two ways. Firstly, it has failed to protect the Israeli people, allowing abominable massacres to occur. Secondly, it has encouraged a policy of occupation and colonization in the West Bank, which poses a threat to Israel. The government's response of using force and vengeance is misguided, as peace and security can only be achieved through justice. The international community can see that the bombings have resulted in predictable and assumed civilian casualties. Israel's objective of targeting terrorists is counterproductive, as it leads to the deaths of innocent children and women, creating more terrorists. Netanyahu's war prevents a political solution and risks escalating the conflict. The focus should be on obtaining the release of hostages and ending the violence. The international community, including Europe and the United States, must reject this unacceptable war, as it could lead to a never-ending cycle of conflicts. The war on terrorism has never been won through force or vengeance; justice is the answer. Israel needs a responsible state alongside it, which means a dignified separation that allows Palestinians to have a viable and peaceful state. This requires the removal of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem. Those who believe this is not enough are promoting the worst outcome.

Speaker argues the Israeli hard right government has a mandate to ethnically cleanse Gaza, saying, 'to they're gonna try to ethnically cleanse Gaza.' They claim they aim to remove '2,500,000 people from there.' He adds, 'there is they this idea that they need to have a true truce or a peace treaty, that's morally crap after you see women and children be burned alive and dragged to the streets.' He says, 'The whole country is a fortress' and you 'cannot go 10 feet without running into a 19 year old with an a r 15 or an automatic machine gun that is an IDF soldier.' He states, 'The last nine months, Israel is on the brink of civil war' and notes protests against Netanyahu, who 'now has an emergency government and a mandate to lead.' He asks, 'Was there a stand down order?'

The speaker discusses the difficulty of predicting the situation in Gaza, particularly regarding whether Israel will send ground forces. They mention that while there has been talk of eradicating Hamas, the Israelis may have realized that it would cause more trouble. Military force is not seen as a solution to the political problem, and the speaker highlights the dilemma Israel faces. They mention that bombing Gaza is disastrous and does not solve the problem, but not taking action allows Hamas to continue causing trouble. The speaker suggests that a two-state solution was the solution, but it is unlikely to happen due to Israel's right-wing politics. They conclude by stating that even if they were to advise Netanyahu, he wouldn't listen or be able to execute a two-state solution due to the current political climate in Israel.

The speaker, who identifies as Jewish, questions those who believe that the conflict between Israel and Hamas would end if Hamas were eliminated or if Palestinians gave up on them. They argue that people who have lost everything, such as their homes, jobs, and access to basic necessities, are more likely to join a group that offers them a chance to fight back. The speaker suggests that Israel is aware of the causes of terrorism, including the lack of civil rights, and that they may even fund Hamas to justify their actions. They highlight the structural violence in Gaza, where people suffer from limited access to water, healthcare, and other basic needs. The speaker urges listeners to consider these factors and to contact their representatives to address the ongoing crisis.

Israel's logic behind carpet bombing Gaza is questioned, with the speaker seeking to understand how it contributes to Israel's safety. The aim is to eradicate Hamas, which is believed to be predominantly located in Northern Gaza, despite the awareness that civilians also reside there. The speaker suggests that Israel's strategy is to pressure the Palestinian community to turn against Hamas, comparing it to tactics used by terrorist organizations. However, Israel is commended for warning civilians before bombing, a practice not seen in other military forces. The speaker criticizes the dehumanizing language used by some individuals and highlights the perception of Israel as a victim while engaging in aggressive actions. The relationship with Israel is likened to being in a relationship with a narcissistic psychopath.

Speaker 1 emphasizes the need to focus on the reality of the situation rather than assigning blame. They express the desire to stop the violence and allow Israel to live in peace and security. However, they argue that the current war is endangering Israel even more and is not leading to the desired outcome. Speaker 1 criticizes Israel's response to the attack, stating that it is neither targeted nor proportionate, but rather driven by a policy of vengeance. They highlight the indiscriminate nature of the retaliation, resulting in the deaths of innocent civilians. The speaker calls for a change in strategy and suggests considering a ceasefire or humanitarian pause to address the dire situation faced by the Palestinian population, who are effectively trapped in besieged cities.

The speaker discusses the difference between targeting Hamas and intentionally harming civilians. They claim that the Israeli actions are not solely focused on Hamas, but rather involve purposely killing a large number of civilians. They argue that evidence from Israeli leaders and assessments supports the idea that this is a campaign to punish and ethnically cleanse Gaza and the West Bank by getting rid of Palestinians.

- 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.

Netanyahu's declaration of being at war with Hamas is seen as a military mistake by the speaker, a former officer. The speaker believes that targeting Gaza to eliminate Hamas is militarily nonsensical and will only legitimize Hamas for the next decade. The speaker suggests that external actors influenced Hamas to carry out the recent attacks, which were organized and sophisticated. They argue that the goal was to provoke Israel into a war and create a regional escalation. The speaker criticizes the Israeli army's slow response and predicts a large-scale massacre if the siege on Gaza continues. They also question whether the government intentionally ignored warnings about the Hamas attack. Ultimately, the speaker sees this war as a paradoxical move by Netanyahu to maintain his political power.

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

If the Mossad had the October plans a year prior, why wasn't Israel prepared? The speaker questions why this hasn't been earnestly asked due to the "fog of war." Referencing Tom Friedman, the speaker suggests the Israeli government may be the "worst thing" to happen to Jewish people globally, citing rising antisemitism and the implication that being Jewish equates to supporting Netanyahu, not Israel's right to exist. Netanyahu is described as a "monster" for discussing personal sacrifices on TV while hostages remain unnegotiated for. The speaker supports Israel and a two-state solution, noting past efforts to curtail Netanyahu, like restricting bunker-busting bombs and opening aid lanes. Now, aid is blocked, and journalists are being killed at unprecedented rates. The speaker asks where are the protestors who previously chanted "Genocide Joe," as the situation has worsened, and the end is near.

Speaker says 'the Israeli hard right government has a mandate' and that 'they're gonna try to ethnically cleanse Gaza' by 'removing 2,500,000 people from there.' They claim 'they have a mandate to go seek justice and revenge' and that a peace treaty would be 'morally crap after you see women and children be burned alive and dragged to the streets.' The speaker notes, 'The whole country is a fortress,' and that 'I've been to that Gaza border' where 'you cannot go 10 feet without running into a 19 year old with AR-15 or automatic machine gun.' They claim 'the last nine months, Israel is on the brink of civil war' with protests against Netanyahu for redefining the constitution; now 'Netanyahu has emergency government and mandate to lead.' They ask, 'Was there a stand down order? Was there a stand down order? Six hour?'

The speaker asserts that "the Israeli hard right government has a mandate, I gotta be careful the way I say this, to they're gonna try to ethnically cleanse Gaza" and that they aim to "remove 2,500,000 people from there" and "go seek justice and revenge." They dismiss the idea of a true truce or peace treaty as "morally crap after you see women and children be burned alive and dragged to the streets." The speaker, who has spent time in Israel, says "the whole country is a fortress" and notes a pattern of disbelief; "you cannot go 10 feet without running into a 19 year old with an a r 15 or an automatic machine gun." He argues "the last nine months, Israel is on the brink of civil war," with hundreds of thousands protesting Netanyahu redefining the constitution; Netanyahu now has "an emergency government and a mandate to lead." He asks, "Was there a stand down order?"

Speaker claims that “the Israeli hard right government has a mandate” and “they're gonna try to ethnically cleanse Gaza,” describing an effort to remove “2,500,000 people from there.” He says there is “a mandate to seek justice and revenge” and that “there is they this idea that they need to have a true truce or a peace treaty, that's morally crap after you see women and children be burned alive and dragged to the streets.” He cites pattern recognition—“COVID, Maui fires, Epstein”—and says the country is a fortress, with the Gaza border where “you cannot go 10 feet without running into a 19 year old with an a r 15 or an automatic machine gun that is an IDF soldier,” and that “the whole country is surveilled.” He adds that “the last nine months, Israel is on the brink of civil war,” with protests against Netanyahu, who now has “an emergency government and a mandate to lead.” He asks, “Was there a stand down order?”