reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker responds to accusations of oppressing Jews, saying that in Belarus half of the government are Jews and asks, “Where we oppressed anyone?”

Mario: Do you think The US should attack Iran? Joel: He could do a large but limited strike designed to punish the Iranian regime, but not explicitly try to topple it. Clint (Glenn): Now it's in the national interest of Iran to acquire nuclear weapons as a deterrent. You think that Iran the authority enemy. Of Not America being responsible for killing thousands of Iranians. It's very strange that we don't recognize the security competition here. You're unbelievable. No legitimate security concerns for Iran. None of your rules. Mario: Gentlemen. Astonishing. Joel: Does Iran need to be an enemy of The US? Clint: I see that’s very dishonest. This idea that The United States and Israel are worried about the Iranian civilians. I think this is ludicrous. If anything, they're doing everything they can to fuel the violence. If we stop threatening them, perhaps we can get something in return. They stop the threat. No. Mario: Never tried we've never gone down this path at all. Joel: You’re just completely ignoring tens of billions of Iranian dollars that go funneling into terrorist organizations that kill Americans, kill our Arab allies, kill our Israeli allies. It doesn't seem to bother you. Mario: Joel, I’m gonna start with you. A pretty broad question. Do you think The US should attack Iran, and do you think they will? Joel: The president has set his own terms. He has three choices: do nothing and frame that as diplomacy; do a large but limited strike designed to punish the regime but not topple it; or go all in toward regime change. He hasn’t made regime change his explicit objective yet. I think he’ll pick option two, a large but limited strike, because negotiations aren’t designed to lead somewhere. The Iranians are not serious, in his view. Mario: Do you think Trump should go with option two, or seek regime change? Joel: He should go with number two. Regime change is something I would love to see, but it’s too big an objective with air power. If the regime is toppled by force, the risks are immense. Damaging the regime—ballistic missiles, some nuclear components—could be enough to protect citizens and allies, even if it doesn’t topple the regime. If a coup follows, that’s a risk. Mario: Glenn, you argued against regime change but acknowledged concerns about the regime’s brutality. Please respond to Joel and the broader points. Glenn: I don’t think Trump should attack. It’s very likely he will, and the objective will probably be a limited bloody nose attack that is going bombed for two or three days or, like last time, twelve, and then pull away, with an implicit understanding that if Iran retaliates, it could be a big war. There is no diplomatic solution because the Iranians reject multi-issue deals; they want nuclear issues to be separate. The Iran regime is existentially threatened, so they’ll respond. The aim should be to recognize key security concerns and pursue a broader security understanding, not just use force. Mario: Joel, respond to Glenn’s point about whether Iran must be considered an enemy and about potential diplomacy. Joel: Does Iran need to be an enemy of The US? No. But this regime is an enemy. The people of Iran do not have to be enemies. The supreme leader believes the United States and Israel are enemies, and for forty-seven years they say, death to America, death to Israel. The Iranian regime has decided they’re the enemy. The Iranian people largely despise the regime. Mario: If Iran agrees to stop the nuclear program, should The US accept such a deal? Is that enough? Joel: The nuclear program is almost 100% destroyed; you wouldn’t negotiate solely on that. If diplomacy exists, it would be to address threats beyond the nuclear issue—ballistic missiles, regional alliances, human rights, etc. The Iranians were willing to accept transparency around their nuclear program in JCPOA-era diplomacy, but the Americans pulled out. If a nuclear deal is possible, it would require mutual concessions; insisting on broader concessions risks collapse. Glenn: The problem is that Iran has legitimate security concerns too. The strategy after the Cold War linking security to global hegemony is problematic. There should be recognition of Iran’s legitimate security needs, not a complete defanging. We should explore a grand bargain—recognize a Palestinian state, get out of Syria, and pursue a path with Iran that reduces the threat without destroying Iran. Mario: There’s a debate about whether the Gulf states see Israel as a bigger threat than Iran now. Joel, what’s your take? Joel: Two countries—Qatar and Turkey—see Israel as an enemy. Turkey’s Erdogan has threatened Jerusalem; Qatar hosts anti-American and anti-Israel propaganda via Al Jazeera and has hosted Hamas leaders. Israel has the right to defend itself and has pursued peace deals with several Arab states, but the region remains dangerous. Israel should avoid destabilizing moves and pursue peace where possible, while recognizing the security challenges it faces. Glenn: Israel’s internal politics and policy flaws exist, but law in Israel provides equal rights to Arab citizens; policy can be improved, but not all claims of apartheid reflect law. Arabs have political rights, though issues with funding and policy remain. The West Bank is a flashpoint; Gaza is controlled by Hamas, complicating Palestinian governance. There’s a broader discussion about whether regime change in Iran is desirable given potential fragmentation and regional instability. Mario: Final question: where is Iran by year’s end? Glenn: If Trump attacks, Iran will perceive an existential threat and may strike back hard, possibly shutting the Strait of Hormuz. Russia and China may intervene to prevent complete destruction of Iran. Joel: I hope Glenn’s scenario doesn’t come true. Iran might pursue nuclear weapons as a deterrent. If the regime is weakened, the region’s stability could be jeopardized. The options remain: negotiate, strike, or regime-change—prefer a large but limited strike to deter further advancement without taking ownership of an unknown future. Mario: Thank you both. This was a vigorous, wide-ranging exchange. End of time.

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.

Question: 'Why should the world tolerate you having nuclear weapons and not, say, Iran?' The speaker replies that 'we never admitted to have such weapons,' and says the comparison is 'very insulting.' They note, 'We fought suffered one holocaust. We listened to our neighbors.' They ask, 'Is it because of the holocaust that you should be allowed to have nuclear weapons?' The exchange centers on accusations of moral justification for nuclear armament. The passage concludes with the speaker's abrupt exit: 'You know what? This interview was finished now. Your attitude is so hostile, and your questions are so arrogant. I don't want to'

I wear a bracelet given by hostage parents until they come home. Jewish people have faced persecution for centuries. Massive Hamas demonstrations in Western cities are concerning.

Iranians are showing support for the Jewish community and Israelis, clarifying that it is the Islamic regime in Iran, not the Iranian people, that funds Hamas and Hezbollah. They emphasize that Iranians have historically supported Jews. They call for Western countries, specifically Canada, to recognize the Islamic regime as a terrorist organization and listen to Iranians' requests. They highlight that Iranians in Canada, funded by the regime, are not being held accountable. The conflict in the Middle East is described as a war between Hamas, funded by the Iranian regime, and Israelis, including Iranians within Iran. They stress that the Iranian people are fighting against their own regime and ask for understanding that the regime's actions do not represent all Iranians.

A Jew goes undercover at a free Palestine rally to understand their perspective. Some attendees blame Jews for the problem and want them to go to hell. The rally calls for a free Palestine, but the Jew wonders where the Jews would go. There is a discussion about the treatment of LGBTQ+ individuals in Gaza. The Jew questions why there is a basis for Israel to exist as a homeland when other groups don't have one. The Jew's family is from Afghanistan, a predominantly Muslim country, but they acknowledge they can't claim Israel.

Governments slowed down the Internet due to security. To do interviews, the speaker went to a building belonging to Iranian States radio and television (IRIP). While waiting for an interview with Piers Morgan, the Zionist regime bombed the central IRIP building, killing people. The building the speaker was in was evacuated. A guard asked the speaker to leave, but the speaker insisted on staying because the interview was important and they were waiting backstage to participate in the discussion. The guard insisted the speaker leave, and the speaker raised their voice.

We used to live together peacefully, babysitting each other's children. We stand in support of the Palestinians and feel humiliated by the Zionist occupation. They have taken our religion and use it to intimidate and silence others. Speaking out against them is labeled as anti-Semitic, but religious communities continue to oppose them.

Henry, as a Holocaust survivor from Germany, it is troubling to see Arabs in Berlin openly celebrating attacks on Israel and sharing sweets. Allowing in people with different beliefs creates internal pressure groups within countries.

"Israelis are not like anybody else. They killed a guy in a hotel room in Dubai, and then after they killed him, they were somehow able to lock the door from the inside of the hotel room. There's an underground" "My experience is universally negative. Universally negative. I've never had a positive encounter with Mossad." "The thing is, you know, the Israelis this was covered in the Washington Post, just a couple days after the twelve day war started." "And what the Israelis did is that they have a lot of Farsi speaking Jews in Israel. These are Iranians who are Jewish and who emigrated to Israel, and a lot of them work from Mossad and Shin Bet."

The day starts with the 10 Iranian plan being accepted by President Donald Trump as the basis for negotiation. JD Vance was headed to Islamabad to lead the American negotiating team, with former leaders persona non grata toward Iran. The speaker notes this contrasted with what happened the last time Iran negotiated with Kushner and Witkoff. Lebanon was in a ceasefire on paper, written by the prime minister of Pakistan, whose efforts were praised. If the 10-point plan was the basis for negotiation, this represented a major victory for the Islamic Republic, a point echoed in a Moscow conference addressed by the Iranian ambassador in those terms. But by sunset, the situation “appeared to have gone to hell in a handcart.” Just before going on air, Tehran’s air defenses were engaged with what were said to be American bombers, implying the ceasefire didn’t even last twelve hours. The Islamabad negotiation is now in grave doubt. In an RT interview, the question was asked whether Iran had really won as claimed. The response asserts that the greatest superpower cannot achieve its objectives and thus has lost; if the U.S. “definitely lost,” then Iran has won. Iran is described as a global south emerging country under sanctions for forty-seven years, surviving two nuclear superpowers (regional and global). The speaker contrasts Trump’s regime-change talk for Iran with Afghanistan’s experience, noting the U.S. spent a trillion dollars to remove the Taliban only for the Taliban to return to power as the U.S. withdrew. There is a claim of “replacing one Khamenei with a second Khamenei,” with the son being less moderate than the father, and referencing the dead father, mother, wife, and children from the initial American attack. The speaker recounts an attack on a 169-schoolgirl incident near Bandar Abbas, asking listeners to imagine daughters or granddaughters incinerated in an instant, and labels it a day of infamy akin to Pearl Harbor. Iran was allegedly negotiating with “the sneak attackers,” with thousands of Iranian civilians killed, mosques and churches destroyed, and even a synagogue destroyed; the speaker notes having filmed a synagogue outside of which there are “100 synagogues in Iran,” with Jews in Iran and a million Christians having an honored place in the Islamic Republic. The claim is that these acts occurred while the United States and Israel bombed, killed front-rank commanders, and destroyed the leader of the Iranian revolution, achieving nothing. The speaker contrasts Trump’s harsh rhetoric against Obama over the JCPOA with Trump’s support for a 10-point plan that supposedly is less restrictive than the JCPOA, including allowing Iran to charge a toll on every tanker through the Strait of Hormuz, potentially earning about a hundred billion dollars per year in perpetuity, and criticizing Obama for returning Iran’s own money. Trump is said to claim Lebanon was included in the ceasefire, but the plan and the prime minister of Pakistan say Lebanon is included; nonetheless, Israel launches a frenzy of violence on Lebanon, including bombing a funeral, with a death toll rising. The speech notes Israeli attacks on Beirut, and describes a seventy-two-hour bombardment and the Arab League’s response, with the UAE allegedly attacking two Iranian islands eight hours after the ceasefire, threatening a broader war between Iran and the UAE. The Strait of Hormuz is claimed closed again, despite Trump’s boast of unblocking it, and oil prices are cited at $144 per barrel, with implications for Russia, Europe, and Asia if prices surge. The speaker asks where this is heading and reflects that, while exultant in the morning, the evening leaves doubt about resolution. The commentary concludes that this is a global crisis bigger than past financial crashes, and introduces Professor Syed Muhammad Marandi as the guest to explain further after a break.

I shook hands with a Hamas activist because they treated us well and were considerate. They took care of my mom's needs and were prepared. They provided shampoo and conditioner for women. I didn't ask about what was happening outside.

The speaker states that Iran is still committed to peace, despite violations by both sides. According to the speaker, after the deal was made, Israel dropped a massive amount of bombs. The speaker expressed unhappiness with Israel's immediate response, claiming they released everything within the first hour of a twelve-hour window. The speaker is also unhappy with Iran. The speaker says one rocket didn't land, possibly shot by mistake. The speaker believes that these two countries have been fighting for so long that they don't know what they're doing anymore.

- The discussion opens with an exploration of how religion is used in land claims, focusing on Judaism, Zionism, and the concept of the Promised Land. The rabbi states that Judaism is a religion with nothing to do with nationality or race, and that “Judaism is a pure religion.” He cites Maimonides and Sanhedrin to define who is considered a Jew, emphasizing that belief is what matters, not ethnicity or birth alone. - The rabbi explains the difference between Judaism and Zionism. Zionism, he says, is a movement about a hundred and thirty years old founded by Teddy Herzl, described as a secular Jew who “didn’t believe in god” or in the Torah. Zionism is portrayed as an effort to transform Judaism from a religion into a national movement, demanding an Israeli passport, army service, Hebrew, and land-based nationhood. He argues that Zionism “transform[s] from a holy religion, from believing in god, from reconnecting to god into a empty, national movement.” - On the Promised Land, the rabbi asserts that the promise in the Torah is conditional, contingent on the people maintaining a high level of life. He references the prophets (Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah) and states that God warned of exile if they did not adhere to the covenant. He emphasizes that the exile was a punishment from God, and that returning to the land requires the coming of the Messiah. He cites the Torah as repeating the conditional nature of the promise and notes that the end of Jeremiah describes exile as the outcome when conditions were not met. - The rabbi discusses the Messiah as a future, peaceful redemption for all humanity, whereas Zionism, in his view, lacks belief in God and the exile, instead adopting a human-centered national project. He mentions the three oaths from the Talmud (Ksumbat) in Numbers 14, 41, describing God’s oaths not to rebel against the nations, not to go up to Israel en masse, and not to prevent the spread of the faith; these oaths are used to argue against aggressive settlement or mass return. - When asked how to respond to Zionist counterarguments about “the chosen people” and the right to a Jewish state, the rabbi distinguishes between religious and secular Jewry. He notes that among religious Jews (Hasidic and Haredi), attitudes toward Zionism and Israel are diverse: outside Israel, he estimates 95% of people look non-Zionist and 65% are strongly anti-Zionist, with prominent anti-Zionist Hasidic communities (e.g., in Stamford Hill) that advocate dismantling the state of Israel in a peaceful way. He contrasts this with segments in Israel, where settlers are strong Zionists, though there are also anti-Zionist Jews, including those who boycott the army. - The interviewer asks about the practical and geopolitical implications of dismantling the state of Israel, and whether a peaceful dismantling is feasible. The rabbi says he is not a politician and reiterates Torah authority, citing that “a rebellion against god cannot be succeed” and re-emphasizing the belief that if the state is in rebellion to God, it will come to an end. He offers a religious perspective that dismantling could be peaceful and envisions living in a Palestinian-governed framework or various arrangements, but insists the core principle is adherence to divine command rather than human political prescriptions. - The rabbi provides anecdotal and contemporary context to illustrate his point: he asserts that Muslims and Jews have lived peacefully in many places, citing Iran as an example where Jews have their own MP and a Jewish hospital, and recounts an instance in which Ismail Haniyeh embraced Jewish rabbis at a conference to illustrate that opposition is directed at occupiers rather than Jews themselves. He argues that within the Arab world there can be acceptance of Jews when “the occupiers” are not present, and he contrasts this with what he views as Western or Zionist framing. - The conversation ends with an agreement to continue the discussion, with the rabbi reiterating his stance that the peaceful dismantlement of the state of Israel is prayed for in the Torah, while the interviewer signals an openness to further dialogue on these complex religious and political issues.

Iran does not recognize Israel's right to exist. The speaker believes Palestinians have a right to return to their homelands and equal rights. They argue against the existence of Israel as a Jewish country, stating that separatist states do not work. The conversation also touches on the identification of countries as Christian or Muslim, contrasting them with the world's only Jewish country, which the speaker questions.

Speaker 0: They say Israel is the only place where we're respected and protected. Speaker 1: I can attest to that. I went to Israel, spent two weeks there with the church, and we had an incredible time. We had only one incident where a small child spit on one of the pastors and immediately after, there was an adult that came by and said, "That's not a representation of who we are. You know, we love you guys." "You guys are always welcome here." And I have to say, no adults gave us any grief. We had no issues whatsoever in our experience there. It was actually an amazing

In Iran, the speaker expresses strong fondness for living there, saying, “Very, very, very, very, very much. Yes. A lot. Limitless.” He attends a Jewish school, and there is one Muslim student studying there. When asked if he likes him, he says, “We like each other. We are all friends at school and we don’t fight. We make jokes and we are very close, actually.” The Muslim student’s own school has more Muslims, but in his school, it is a Jewish school with only one Muslim student. Regarding pride in nationality, he answers that he does feel proud to be Iranian: “Yes.” When asked about his favorite things to do in Tehran, he mentions a few interests. He says he wants to be a power mechanic and also enjoys baking; “You bake? … If I grow up … If I choose to be a baker, sure. You are welcome.” He also notes that he likes to read, and the interviewer confirms that he likes reading too. The interviewer asks if there is anything else to ask, and the student says “Not really,” ending with a note for audiences in Australia. The interviewer quips, “People in Australia will hear you. We have kangaroos.” The student has seen a kangaroo at the zoo and is described as “very clever.” The exchange ends with expressions of gratitude: “Thank you. Mercy.” and farewells: “Bye.”

The speaker was asked if they believed students protesting were motivated by anti-Semitism or horror at the Gaza slaughter. The speaker dismissed the idea of students being driven by horror and refused to continue the conversation if it was being recorded.

An Iranian man states that the Islamic regime in Iran shut down the internet for over twelve hours. He says this is not the action of America or Israel, but of the Iranian government. He expresses worry for political prisoners and regular citizens, fearing the regime might seek revenge on its own people due to losing the war to Israel. He says Iranians hate the government and have been trying to overthrow it for 46 years. He clarifies that Israel is bombing IRGC and Islamic regime bases, not the Iranian people, and that Iranians support these actions. He claims the Iranian regime are evil people, and the people in Iran hate the regime. He accuses others of supporting the regime and wanting to put nuclear weapons in their hands.

Speaker 0 argues that Iran, despite being the greatest enemy of Israel, treats Jewish people living there as ordinary citizens and protects them in the midst of war. They claim that there are 35,000 Jewish people in Iran today and that they enjoy a “golden life,” with no problems during the conflict. According to the speaker, Iranians do not hate Jews; they have a problem with the occupation. The message repeated is that “we are not against Jews. We are against the occupation,” and that this stance is stated repeatedly in the media. The speaker contends that mainstream media are under Zionist influence and attempt to smear people with anti-Semitism, labeling criticisms of Israel as Nazis or anti-Semitic, even when the speaker asserts these criticisms are unrelated to anti-Semitism. The speaker questions why the media do not highlight a contrasting point: that Jewish people in Iran are living under missiles but are living freely, with access to schools, high schools, and all other institutes. They point to a Jewish hospital in Iran that is funded completely by the government and ask why this is not seen in the news. Overall, the speaker asserts a discrepancy between the situation of Jews in Iran and what is portrayed in the media, suggesting that the public is not being informed about the reality of Jewish life in Iran—its safety, institutions, and government support—while focusing on accusations of anti-Semitism and Nazi imagery. They emphasize that Iranians’ stance is not against Jews but against the occupation, and they critique the media for not presenting the full context of Jews living in Iran.

Speaker 1 and Speaker 0 discuss the current wave of protests in Iran and how it differs from past unrest, with a focus on causes, dynamics, and potential outcomes. - The protests are described as the strongest since 2022, sparked by economic distress and currency collapse. The immediate trigger was the volatility of the rial and the impact on bazaar merchants, who closed shops in Tehran and took to the streets, followed by university campuses and other cities. Youth participation has increased, with some behaving more courageously on the streets. - A key new element is the explicit rejection of the Islamic government. For the first time, crowds are reportedly shouting that they do not want this Islamic government or the regime of the supreme leader, and they are calling for change rather than merely better elections. There is also increasing mention of Reza Pahlavi (the former Shah’s son) as a symbol in chants, though the speakers caution that this does not necessarily reflect broad support for his leadership or a viable path to democracy. - The discussion notes a sustained gap between the regime and the Iranian people that has widened over two decades. The regime has failed to narrow this divide, especially among the younger, educated generation. The political system’s structure—where the supreme leader appoints half the Guardian Council and thus shapes presidential candidates—has contributed to this rift. The trend toward questioning the regime’s legitimacy contrasts with earlier protests, where calls to overthrow the regime were less explicit. - Differences from previous protests (2007, 2009, 2019, 2022) are highlighted: - Past protests rarely called for overthrow; current protests openly reject the Islamic government and the supreme leader. - There is a notable Kurdish involvement this time, though the degree and regional participation vary, and some Kurdish communities may be wary due to positions taken by monarchist factions and the regime’s stance on minority rights. - The protests are spreading from major cities to smaller towns and include diverse regions of the country. - Foreign influence and potential intervention: - Trump’s warnings to the regime are considered to have had some impact on Iranian youth, though the extent is unclear and cannot be measured without data. - There is debate about potential US cyber or military actions; the guest believes it would be difficult and risky, especially if a broader confrontation with the US and Israel occurred. He warns that foreign intervention could feed regime propaganda that protests are foreign-instigated. - Israel’s involvement is likewise seen as dangerous and potentially counterproductive, risking the perception of foreign manipulation and nationalistic backlash. - Internal security dynamics: - The relationship between the IRGC and the regular army is discussed as potentially fragile. A split, internal defections, or civil conflict within security forces could become an “Achilles heel” for the regime, though such scenarios are described as extreme and not imminent. - There is concern about what would happen after a regime change. The speaker argues that there is currently no robust, organized opposition with a clear program for governance post-overthrow, and monarchist groups around Reza Pahlavi may not represent a democratic alternative. The risk of chaos without a viable plan is highlighted. - The host and guest discuss personal risk and motivations: - The professor recounts his history of arrests under both the Shah and the Islamic regime, including a sentence to 18 months for criticizing the nuclear program, followed by a two-month prison term due to health concerns. He describes a cancer diagnosis and his relief at advances in cancer treatment, while noting that his health remains a concern. - He emphasizes that he does not support Trump or Netanyahu's positions and that his willingness to speak publicly stems from concern about Iran’s future, not alignment with foreign powers. - Final themes: - The protests reflect long-standing grievances but reveal a new willingness to reject the regime itself. - Questions remain about leadership, governance after potential regime change, minority rights, and the risk of civil conflict if the regime collapses or is weakened. - The discussion closes with acknowledgments of the personal risk involved in speaking out and a nuanced stance toward foreign involvement.

Why is it that Jewish people in this country get blamed for what a nation on the other side of the world is doing constantly? He cites incidents: 'a couple weeks ago, we had, an individual show up at a synagogue in San Antonio with a knife, yelling at the people who came out of services, f all you Jews, go back to your country.' We had a Jewish man assaulted in broad daylight in San Francisco. He continues, 'Anti Zionism, I've long said is anti Semitism. I was wrong. Anti Zionism is genocide.' 'And what I mean is if you so dehumanize Zionists, by the way, every Jewish person is a Zionist.' 'So the idea that our national anthem would be the Hatikva, would be the hope. I should say our. It's the Israel's national anthem.'

Question: 'Do you believe that the Gentiles, the Goyim, will one day become the slaves of the Jews?' 'So I believe it's it's gonna it's part of the Torah.' The speakers discuss politics, then answer: 'No.' 'No.' and 'No.' 'No.' I'd love to hear your thoughts on the current conflict. Everything's happening? It's all an illusion?' 'Yes. Yeah. Wow. That guy is the is one of the greatest optimists I've ever seen.' 'Can I ask you a couple questions?' 'Yeah. Yeah. So somebody just threw a water balloon at us. And now there's a crowd gathering because they're gonna they're saying that they're gonna chase us away, and they're gathering numbers now.' 'So there's a big flock of people who's gonna chase us.' 'Yeah. I'm not Santa Monica. It's not Yolanda. So I'm not allowed to talk to anybody in the'