reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I was involved in vetting arms for Israel and learned about a 13-year-old boy being raped in an Israeli prison. We found the allegations credible and informed the government. The next day, IDF raided the charity's office and labeled them terrorists. It's crucial to prevent all atrocities, including sexual violence and other human rights abuses. People need to be valued and not dehumanized.

The speaker discusses the recent events in Israel and Gaza, highlighting violations of international law by Israeli authorities. The report found Israel responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity, including attacks on civilians and infrastructure. The speaker questions the claim that the Israeli army is the most moral, emphasizing the need to assess criminal conduct. The conclusion drawn is that the Israeli army is one of the most criminal armies in the world.

Ashwin Rutanski hosts Going Underground, outlining a global swirl of recent events: Odessa massacre anniversary, Ukraine, oil politics with UAE withdrawing from OPEC+, Trump signaling troop withdrawal from Europe, and a broader context of US and allied military actions. The broadcast features a guest: Master Sergeant Wes Bryant, a former chief of the Pentagon’s civilian harm mitigation and response effort and the first head of its civilian protection center of excellence (PTEC). Bryant discusses his twenty-year career as a JTAC (Joint Terminal Attack Controller), coordinating on-the-ground targeting and calling in air strikes, while conducting civilian harm mitigation and collateral damage analysis to minimize civilian casualties. Key explanations from Bryant: - JTAC role: JTAC stands for Joint Terminal Attack Controller, formerly Forward Air Controller. JTACs coordinate and call in air strikes, oversee intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance for targeting, and conduct civilian harm mitigation to avoid civilian casualties. - Bryant’s background: Spanned conventional and special operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, later initiating and operating strike cells against ISIS across Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. Bryant describes the Pentagon’s civilian protection efforts: - Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Effort (CHMRE) was authorized during the Trump administration and later codified into law under Secretary Lloyd Austin in the Biden administration, establishing the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence at the Pentagon and a broader network across the US government. - The aim of the Center was to sustain and improve protection of civilians and reduce civilian harm in military operations, reflecting past failures and successes in the war on terror. Reactions to leadership and policy shifts: - Bryant asserts that Pete Hegseth, who later led the Pentagon, pursued a transition toward a view of “wokeness” and restrictive engagement rules, leading to the dissolution of the civilian protection center and a shift toward “lethality” and greater civilian harm tolerance. He claims Hegseth’s rhetoric and policy direction contributed to a more permissive environment for strikes with increased civilian casualties. - He contends that this shift correlates with intensified operations in Iran and broader Middle East conflicts, including alleged recklessness and negligence in targeting in places like Yemen and the Caribbean/Pacific, and a failure to adequately account for civilian harm. Views on war conduct and accountability: - Bryant rejects claims that Trump’s inflammatory statements on social media are solely negotiation tactics; he argues that Trump’s actions—such as threats to bomb energy infrastructure and bridges in Iran, including a strike on a bridge—indicate intent that could amount to war crimes and reflect a disregard for civilian harm. - He criticizes the current approach to civilian protection, arguing that even if some actions are framed as “fog of war,” Iran-related operations involve months of target vetting from secure rear offices, with a lack of on-the-ground risk in contrast to battlefield fog of war. He asserts this marks a departure from past standards and raises concerns about willful recklessness or negligence as potential war crimes. Iran/Israel/Gaza context and analysis: - Bryant argues that many civilian casualties in Gaza and Iran reflect a broader policy environment influenced by a fusion of extremist ideologies within Trump’s and Netanyahu’s camps, including revisionist Zionism and white Christian nationalism. He claims the administration is aligned with Israel due to these ideological underpinnings, impacting the US approach to Iran and Gaza. - He suggests that US weapons are often used in ways that violate international law or US best practices, and he envisions a role for civilian protection mechanisms to monitor end-use of weapons, though such monitoring faced challenges in State Department capacity. Concluding remarks: - The discussion touches on incidents such as the Kunduz hospital strike and calls into question the balance between strategic aims and civilian protection. Bryant emphasizes a concern that the current leadership under Hagseth lacks accountability, contrasting it with earlier attempts to implement civilian harm mitigation within the Pentagon. - The program closes with Bryant’s assertion of concern over the ongoing use of anti-tank/anti-personnel mines and their open-area deployment, suggesting potential violations of international law. Bryant’s interview highlights: the role of JTACs in targeting, the rise and fall of the Pentagon’s civilian protection center, and perceived shifts in US military policy that Bryant attributes to Pete Hegseth and related leadership, framed within broader debates over civilian harm, international law, and the ethics of US interventions in the Middle East.

Speaker 0 recalls writing a resignation email. Speaker 1 states: "That report will haunt us. And it does, and it haunts me. The determination that Israel is not blocking humanitarian assistance is patently, demonstrably false." In April, Stacey Gilbert was asked for her input on a Biden administration report on whether Israel was committing war crimes in Gaza. "I was shocked to see that it said in very clear terms, it is our determination that Israel is not blocking humanitarian assistance." The subject matter experts were removed, and the report was moved up to a higher level. "We were told you will see the report when it is released publicly." And after reading, she said: "I wasn't sure I read that correctly. I read it again, and I sent an email then that I would resign as a result of that."

These events are different, despite some similarities. The recent incident triggered a shift in the White House's stance on Israel. Aid workers in war zones know the risks they face. Comparing events from different conflicts three years apart would be unwise.

An aid worker reports witnessing a tragedy where Israeli tanks and weapons fired on a crowd of thousands of starving people running towards them after they passed through the Zakim gate with clearance from Israelis. The aid worker stated that no humanitarian aid worker should ever be a target. The aid worker was asked about the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) in light of reports that over 800 Palestinians have been killed around aid distribution sites in the last two months, mostly at GHF locations. The aid worker clarified that they do not coordinate with or work with GHF because they are a UN agency with a different operational model. They stated they have no information about GHF because they do not communicate.

The US has pushed Israel on humanitarian aid, making progress, but does not judge if Israel is impeding US aid flow into Gaza as per the 1961 foreign assistance act.

What's happening in The Middle East, in particular with Gaza right now, we have some more responsibility for both sides in a way because we provide help and funding for both Arab nations and Israel. And so we definitely have a moral responsibility, and especially now today, the weapons being used to kill so many Palestinians are American weapons, and American funds is essentially are being used for this. But there's a political liability, which I think is something that we fail to look at because too often there's so much blowback from our intervention in areas that we shouldn't be involved in. Hamas, if you look at the history, you'll find out that Hamas was encouraged and really started by Israel because they wanted Hamas to counteract Yasser Arafat. And he said, well, that was better then and served his purpose, but we didn't want Hamas to do this. Then we have election, then Hamas becomes dominant, so we have to kill him.

The speaker questions why criticism of Israel from human rights groups is often rejected by the US, while reports on other countries are accepted. The response clarifies that disagreement is based on specific findings, not a blanket rejection of all reports. The speaker emphasizes that while they may cite outside groups in reports, they do not always agree with every detail. Disagreement with specific findings does not equate to rejecting all criticism from human rights reports.

Ryan explains the observations about the violence in Rafa, referring to a map of the Rafa site. On Sunday, the IDF reported an RPG attack at Rafa Airport, which has not operated for some time. They also said snipers appeared, the IDF was trying to clear a tunnel, and that some fighters might be hiding in that tunnel. The key point, according to Ryan, is how far Rafa Airport is behind enemy lines, with IDF positions nearby and extensive rubble all around, and no tunnel network connecting Rafa to the rest of Gaza. This leads to two possibilities if the IDF story is accurate: either Hamas fighters managed to move through the rubble for kilometers to ambush from behind the lines, or they have been hiding in a tunnel for eight months since the area has been under IDF control for roughly eight months, raising questions about how they would be provisioned (food and water). Ryan then relays information from a source familiar with the situation who says that shortly after the attack, American intelligence indicated that a bulldozer operated by a settler company that has been destroying homes in Rafa ran over either unexploded ordinance or some improvised explosive device that had not detonated during the fighting in Rafa many months ago, and that the United States relayed this intel to Israel. He notes that there is a large stock of IDs and a large amount of unexploded ordnance from shells and bombs that did not explode, and that a bulldozer hitting such ordnance could cause an explosion. Ryan adds a fine point: if this account is true, it would suggest White House officials believe Israel lied to them. He states that they “believe” this, and when they conveyed that they knew what had happened, Netanyahu responded by reopening the crossings. Netanyahu had previously said that because of the attack, all crossings would be closed with no food or medicine entering. After the White House’s message related to Israel, Netanyahu announced the crossings would be reopened on Monday morning, just a few hours later due to the time difference. The closure and then rapid reversal are highlighted as a consequence of the White House’s position. The discussion then returns to whether US officials “called Netanyahu out” and whether Netanyahu’s initial story about the violence was challenged, leading to the reversal of the crossing closures.

Stacey Gilbert discusses an April input on a Biden administration report on whether Israel was committing war crimes in Gaza. Gilbert says 'the determination that Israel is not blocking humanitarian assistance is patently, demonstrably false.' She notes that 'the subject matter experts were removed, and the report was moved up to a higher level.' 'We were told you will see the report when it is released publicly.' The final report comes out and doesn't include what you had to say: 'And then the report comes out and just doesn't include what you had to say?' She recalls, 'I wasn't sure I read that correctly. I read it again, and I sent an email then that I would resign as a result of that.' She concludes, 'I said that report will haunt us. And it does, and it haunts me.'

We are unable to speak with people in Israel due to lack of access. Medical doctors from Gaza were stopped by the Israeli government from sharing information with us. We urge Israel to cooperate and victims to come forward. Access to Gaza and the West Bank has been denied since October 7.

Israeli forces have repeatedly attacked our convoys, hospitals, and staff shelters, causing fear and suffering in Gaza. The health system we've supported for decades is being systematically destroyed, with patients and colleagues killed or injured. This is part of Israel's war on the entire population of Gaza, with no regard for humanitarian principles. The laws meant to protect humanitarian assistance are now meaningless.

I have been investigating USAID's humanitarian aid expenditures related to the war in Ukraine for several years. My team faced significant obstruction and misinformation from USAID, which hindered our access to records detailing taxpayer money usage. Partnering with Representative Mike McCall, we initiated a congressional investigation, but USAID only provided limited data. Our findings revealed excessive spending by USAID with minimal data-driven results. Notably, funds were directed to the Wuhan Institute of Virology for dangerous coronaviruses, and there were expenditures for pottery classes in Morocco and tourism in Lebanon, despite State Department travel warnings.

The administration is aware of reports that Israeli forces fired on Palestinians seeking aid from the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. The Red Cross reported that 20 people arrived at their hospital with gunshot wounds and died. The administration is investigating the veracity of these reports, stating they don't take Hamas' word as truth. The speaker criticized the BBC for initially reporting Israeli tanks and gunfire killed dozens, then retracting the story after reviewing footage and finding no evidence. The speaker stated they will look into reports before confirming them or taking action and suggested journalists do the same to reduce misinformation.

The speaker was asked why not blame Hamas for the atrocities. They explained their mission was to gather information, not assign blame. The speaker acknowledged the frustration of the people of Israel and emphasized the need for the government to provide access for further investigation.

There is mistrust towards the Israeli and US governments due to past instances of misinformation. People are skeptical and want an international investigation to determine the truth. However, the US government does not believe it is appropriate at this time. The Israeli government has provided evidence supporting their claim that the hospital attack was a misfire from Gaza. In contrast, Hamas has made a claim without any evidence. It is unfortunate that many believe the terrorist organization's claim over the Israeli government's evidence. The US government is conducting its own assessment.

An official states that serious consequences for bombing and killing children will be a second-term decision to prevent, not a first-term one, due to political calculations. It's too politically risky to say what Biden said earlier in the week, which was "we're not going to give you more bombs." A US shipment of 3,500 bombs was paused. There is a huge, powerful Jewish influence in both Republican and Democratic politics. The administration faces pressure regarding siding with political factions and parties. Deliberations on Israel are not public to avoid angering people. Israel has both a domestic and international footprint. Domestically, there are many Jewish people, and it's easy for certain folks to twist the message. After the October 7th terrorist attack, the US could help, but can't say that because it's all classified. Losing support from Jewish voters could prevent obtaining 270 electoral votes. Saying "no free bombs" was risky because Jews will get upset, feeling America is turning against them. The Palestine effort represents many voters, and they feel they've lost them. Keeping things quiet is necessary for now.

The UN released a 600-page report on the Gaza war, describing it as a deliberate attempt by Israel to collectively punish the Palestinian population. The report highlights violations of human rights, including attacks on civilian targets such as hospitals and schools, the use of civilians as human shields, and torture. The Israeli offensive in Gaza was criticized for its disproportionate use of force and violation of international humanitarian law. The Palestinian Authority hopes that the international community will reconsider its policy towards Gaza and lift the blockade to provide access to water, electricity, and food.

The speaker states that they have not seen any evidence to suggest a need for a different approach in helping Israel defend itself. When asked if any formal assessment has been conducted to determine if Israel is following the rules of war, the speaker admits to being unaware of any such assessment by the United States government. The question of how they can ensure that the weapons and resources provided by the U.S. adhere to international law is raised, to which the speaker reiterates that they have not seen anything to suggest a change in their approach to assisting Israel's defense.

The Israelis were using American weapons in Gaza, likely targeting civilians intentionally. Dropping 6,000 bombs daily, they killed 35,000 civilians. The speaker, an intelligence officer, was troubled by the indiscriminate targeting of Palestinian civilians made possible by US weapons. Translation: The Israelis used American weapons in Gaza, likely targeting civilians intentionally. Dropping 6,000 bombs daily, they killed 35,000 civilians. The speaker, an intelligence officer, was troubled by the indiscriminate targeting of Palestinian civilians made possible by US weapons.

In a discussion about a Biden administration report on Gaza, Speaker 1 recounts Her resignation over what she perceived as amisleading conclusion. She says, "I said that report will haunt us. And it does, and it haunts me. The determination that Israel is not blocking humanitarian assistance is patently, demonstrably false." In April, Stacey Gilbert was asked for her input on the administration’s report regarding whether Israel was committing war crimes in Gaza. Speaker 0 notes that Gilbert was asked for input, and Gilbert confirms she advised that the conclusion was not the case. She states, "The subject matter experts were removed, and the report was moved up to a higher level. We were told you will see the report when it is released publicly." When the report was released, it "just doesn't include what you had to say?" Gilbert responds, "I wasn't sure I read that correctly. I read it again and I sent an email then that I would resign as a result of that." Overall, the exchange highlights Gilbert’s claim that the report claimed Israel was not blocking humanitarian assistance, despite her advice to the contrary, the removal of subject matter experts, the report being elevated, and her subsequent decision to consider resigning after the public release did not reflect her input.