reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Interviewer and Professor discuss what is known about October 7, the broader context, and the ongoing political implications. - On October 7, the global picture is that roughly 1,200 people were killed, with about 400 combatants and about 800 civilians, according to authorities the professor cites. He notes he relies on UN Human Rights Council Commission of Inquiry, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch but cautions these bodies do not have perfect records. He maintains there is no compelling evidence that a significant portion of the deaths in Israel’s reaction to October 7 were the result of Israeli actions, and he says the deaths are overwhelmingly attributable to Hamas and other armed groups in Gaza. He states there is no evidence supporting the claim that Hamas weaponized rape on October 7. - Regarding rape allegations, the professor emphasizes that the UN mission distinguishes between rape and sexual violence; the UN Commission of Inquiry states there is no digital or photographic evidence of rape. Pamela Patton’s report looked at 5,000 photographs and 50 hours of digital evidence but concluded there was no direct digital or photographic evidence of sexual violence on October 7. He questions why, if such incidents occurred, witnesses did not produce photographic or digital proof, noting that in a conflict zone Israelis would typically photograph atrocities; he suggests eyewitness testimony often aligns with broader narratives about Israel, and argues that some eyewitness accounts come from sources that claim Israel is morally exemplary while also alleging atrocities. - The discussion then moves to the credibility of eyewitness reports. The professor argues that some eyewitness accounts “will tell you Israel is the most moral army in the world” while also suggesting Israel’s society is inbred and that Israeli soldiers form deep bonds in the army, which could influence narratives. He notes a broader pattern of people publishing favorable studies of Israel while denying atrocities. - On Hamas’s planning before October 7, the professor describes Gaza as an “inferno under the Israeli occupation,” with Gaza repeatedly described as a concentration camp by prominent figures since 2004 and 2008. He argues that by late 2023 Gaza was portrayed as facing international indifference, and he asserts that the belief that Gaza’s fate would be sealed by Saudi Arabia joining the Abraham Accords contributed to Hamas’s decision-making. He cites The Economist and UN commentary describing Gaza’s conditions well before October 7, including extreme unemployment (approximately 60% among Gaza’s young people) and a collapse of basic services. - The interviewer asks why violence occurred given various nonviolent and diplomatic avenues. The professor notes that Hamas had attempted diplomacy, including reports of seeking a two-state solution or a hudna, cooperation with human rights investigations after prior Israeli operations, and support for nonviolent movements like the Great March of Return. He claims Hamas’s efforts were ignored and emphasizes the blockade’s impact on Gaza. He argues that while Hamas was not saints, they engaged with diplomacy and international law before resorting to violence in the face of Gaza’s dire conditions. - The West Bank vs. Gaza comparison is discussed. The professor argues that the goal in Gaza differs from that in other contexts; whereas other actors may aim to subordinate, Israel’s long-term aim in Gaza is described as making Gaza unlivable and controlling the territory, with support from various Arab states. - The interviewer questions the historical legitimacy of Gaza and Palestinian statehood. The professor rejects attempts to deny Palestinian existence or redefine Gaza’s status, insisting Gaza’s people are Palestinian and Gaza is not part of the West Bank, while acknowledging the historical complexities. - On the UN Security Council resolution and the “board of peace,” the professor describes the resolution as endorsing the Trump peace plan and naming Donald Trump as head of the board of peace, with the board operating with sovereign powers in Gaza and lacking external accountability. He asserts that this effectively grants Trump control over Gaza and foresees rebuilding timelines; he argues that reconstruction would take decades under current conditions, given rubble, toxins, unexploded ordnance, and the scale of destruction. - The future of Gaza is described pessimistically: Gaza is depicted as “gone” in the sense of a prolonged, uninhabitable landscape under an administratively transitional framework that does not guarantee meaningful reconstruction. The professor contends that Arab states endorsed the resolution under pressure and that some leaders feared severe economic repercussions if they opposed it. - The discussion closes with reflections on who benefits from the resolution and the overall trajectory for Gaza, including strong skepticism about any imminent or credible path to durable peace given the political arrangements described and the perceived long-term consequences for the Palestinian people.

Gaza was previously under Israeli IDF control but was given up in 2005 for peace. However, it has now become a hub for terrorists, particularly Hamas. Despite receiving significant financial aid from the West, no new hospitals or schools have been built in the past five years. On the other hand, over the last two years, more than 30 terror tunnels have been discovered. It is worth noting that Hamas exploits children for their own purposes.

Israel's attack on Gaza in 2008 is described as a shameful day in Jewish history. The speaker criticizes Israel for carpet bombing Gaza and dropping 100 tons of bombs in just one day. They highlight that this attack occurred when children were on the streets during a shift change at schools. The speaker argues that this act of violence is an example of terrorism and suggests that Israel uses such tactics to control different populations while maintaining a liberal image.

Speaker explains that Palestine is not new to many; October 7 highlighted a long history. Beginning with a post–World War II UN plan (1947) to create a Jewish state on part of Palestine, despite Palestinian non-participation. About 750,000 Palestinians were displaced as part of the partition. Palestinians call this the Nakba. Israel declared itself a state and pursued lands in the Arab-state zones; by 1967's Six Day War, it had seized the West Bank and Gaza, prompting UN calls to withdraw. In 1974 the UN recognized the PLO as Palestine's official government, while Israel funded groups to destabilize it. Intifadas followed (1987 and beyond); Oslo accords failed to stop occupation. Israel then funded Hamas; Gaza was blockaded; the West Bank built a barrier; movement restricted; starvation of Gazans for years. The speaker condemns the actions as genocide and urges ending U.S. support for Israel.

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.

What I’m about to say now, most people in conspiracy research won’t touch this subject. I’m going to touch it because I’m sick of it and sick of people being frightened and intimidated into not touching it. First of all, we as a human race have got to get our heads around what this is because it ain’t what we’re told it is. It’s not about what’s right and beneficial for Jewish people. Jewish people are its victims, not its beneficiaries. Jewish people have been hung out to dry again and again by this crowd. They claim to have their best interests at heart like hell they do. That’s why I call this Rothschild Zionism. It was created by them. It is controlled by them to this minute, and it was created as a secret society within the web to massively contribute to the manipulation and control of our global society and individual countries, etcetera, etcetera. It’s Rothschild Zionism. Anti Zionism is not antisemitism. Not that antisemitism means what we think it does. Zionism is not about Jewish people. Even in its play out way or world, it is political system, a political philosophy. At its core, it is a secret society putting its agents in places of power. One of the very few things that Joe Biden, vice president of The United States, has ever said, which is true, is you don’t have to be Jewish to be a Zionist. Because of the propaganda, we equate Zionism with Jewish people. It’s not how it is. How many people know this? How many Jewish people around the world protesting at organizations created to protest against Zionism? Zionism and Judaism are diametrically opposed. Zionism is state organized terror. How many times do we see this in the newspapers? Never. End of Zionism equals peace. Israel, stop killing Palestinians. I am Jewish, and I want that. Why do we hear about this? We condemn any Zionist aggression against Iran. I thought every Jewish person in the world wanted to bomb Iran. That’s what the media seemed to give us an indication about. Another Jew against Zionism. Over and over, Rothschild dynasty created Israel. It paid for the first people out of Europe to go and populate Israel after the war. It paid for the building of the Knesset. It paid for the building of the supreme court building with all its illuminati symbols all over it. And some of the people who’ve broken out of the family, I quote one of them in my book, have actually said, Israel is not the homeland of Jewish people. It is the fiefdom of the Rothschild dynasty created out of Rothschild Zionism, a secret society. And Rothschild Zionism has been used via Israel to devastate, slaughter, torture an entire nation of human beings while claiming to be against terrorism. This is the dictionary definition of genocide, the systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of an entire national, racial, religious, or ethnic group. Never can what is happening in Palestine and Gaza have been described so accurately. More and more people killed through war, killed through bombing attacks, killed through shootings, killed through lack of food and adequate medical care. Gaza, the most crowded piece of land on earth, is little more ironically than a concentration camp, and the world looks on. And then we got this wall, sorry, security fence, which has taken great tracks of Palestinian land, right all against international law and all the rest of it. This green is Palestinian land in 1946. Then we see what has happened since. This is 2000. We're in 2010 now. It’s much smaller than that. What was I saying? The systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of an entire national racial, religious, or ethnic group. And I say to these Rothschild Zionists, don’t you bloody dare talk about racism of others when you are behind this. It’s an elephant in the bloody living room, and people are terrified of going there because they’re terrified of being called racist and antisemitic and all that. They’ll call you antisemitic. I don’t give a shit. I don’t give a shit.

Speaker 0: In February and March 2026, I'll be back on the road in Hull, Gateshead, Derby, and Colchester. 2026 is when they want to cross the line as fast as they can into an AI controlled humanity. We stand up now or we regret it forever. That's four dates. Speaker 0: I recorded an edition of a show for iconic.com called Legacy, relating the content of my books to today. A central concept is what I labeled in the 1990s as problem reaction solution, also known as a false flag. The idea is to create a situation—war, terrorist attack, banking collapse, or something similar—then present the version of the problem you want the public to believe to provoke outrage and urgency. Then you covertly create the problem, evoke a public reaction, and openly offer the solutions you’ve already prepared. Speaker 0: Nine-Eleven is given as a classic example: attack on New York and Washington, blame Arab terrorists, claim Osama bin Laden and the Taliban orchestrated it. The reaction is “do something,” followed by the invasions of Afghanistan and other Middle Eastern countries. In response to Bondi Beach, the point is made that representatives may not truly represent the people, and a global network I call the global cult drives dystopia through digital AI means, operating through governments, intelligence agencies, and militaries worldwide. Even leaders such as presidents or prime ministers may not serve their nations’ people but the global cult’s interests. Speaker 0: One center of this global cult’s operations is Israel, established in 1948 for that purpose. The claim is that leadership claiming to represent Jewish people operates for the global cult rather than Jewish communities, and may even sacrifice Jewish lives to advance its aims through problem reaction solution. The Gaza crisis since October 7 is described as the world’s large-scale trauma, with statements about the Israeli government’s psychopathy and a super psychopathology characterized by a complete lack of empathy and deletion of compassion. The question is whether such leaders can truly have compassion for fellow Jews if they are driven by a broader agenda. Speaker 0: Regarding October 7, the Gaza border fence is described as the world’s most defended border, with sensors so sensitive that even a small animal would be detected. Yet Hamas breached the fence in multiple places, and there were reports of a stand-down by the Israeli defense forces, allowing the cross-border assault and hostage-taking. The outcome, it’s claimed, was used by Netanyahu to justify mass slaughter and destruction in Gaza, with talk of plans to take over land and expel Palestinians. The narrative then shifts to global perception, with some Christian Zionists wavering in support due to Gaza atrocities, and Israel allegedly funding influence campaigns to restore its global image, including money to American politicians and media interests. Speaker 0: When a new attack—Bondi Beach in Australia—occurs, Netanyahu publicly notes a Jewish man disarmed one of the attackers (though a Muslim did so), before retracting. This is presented as part of a pattern: calls to crack down on anti-Semitism, equating anti-Semitism with criticism of Israel and Zionism. The claim is that the only beneficiary is those who use such events to justify censorship and control of information, while the victims, including Jewish people who died or were injured, gain nothing. Speaker 0: The discussion reiterates that mind-control techniques exist and could drive individuals to commit mass violence without full awareness, referencing mind-control concepts like Manchurian candidates. The speaker urges asking “who benefits?” and considering elements of problem reaction solution and false flags in analyzing events, recognizing that appearances of representation do not guarantee genuine representation. For readers interested in more, the speaker directs to their books and content.

The speaker criticizes the Israeli army, calling them a well-trained terrorist organization. They mention an incident from four years ago when Israel began bombing Gaza, dropping 100 tons of bombs on the first day. The speaker argues that this act was terrorism, as it occurred during a shift change when children were on the streets. They also suggest that Israel maintains control over different populations while projecting a liberal image.

Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza live under military occupation, facing daily invasions, abductions, beatings, and restricted movement by Israeli soldiers. Israeli forces frequently demolish homes, destroy crops, confiscate land, shell Gaza, and kill Palestinians. US media often overlooks these Palestinian deaths, while emphasizing rocket attacks from Gaza without mentioning the context of Israeli violence. The history of the conflict and the influence of the Israel lobby, which receives over $10 million per day of American tax money, are also not reported. Palestinians endure the loss of their homes, farms, and livelihoods, with thousands of olive trees destroyed and almost 50,000 homes demolished since 1967. Gaza, blockaded by Israel and Egypt, is described as the world's largest open-air prison, with its 2 million inhabitants facing constant violence.

The speaker claims that Israel views the October 7th attacks as an opportunity for ethnic cleansing in Gaza to solve a demographic problem. This allegation is based on data in the Israeli press, where, according to the speaker, Israelis have openly discussed this idea. The speaker states that the population of Gaza is largely composed of descendants from the 1948 ethnic cleansing, and that there was another massive ethnic cleansing after the 1967 war in the West Bank. The speaker suggests that a third attempt at ethnic cleansing in Gaza is not surprising. According to the speaker, literature on the creation of Israel thoroughly documents that ethnic cleansing was discussed by Zionists from the beginning, as it was seen as necessary to create a greater Israel. The speaker rejects the idea that Palestine was a land without people for a people without land.

There was no Hamas terror attack on October 7th. Palestinian fighters from the oppressed Gaza Strip retaliated against Israel after years of suffering. They managed to take over half of Israel and paralyze the state for weeks. Israel, feeling humiliated, is now seeking revenge by killing innocent civilians. This is not about self-defense or protecting Israelis, but rather about brutality and proving a point. However, the killing has not stopped the Palestinian fighters. Israeli ground forces have already suffered casualties.

Israel is frequently preparing for military actions against various nations, often targeting defenseless populations. The situation in Palestine is dire, with widespread human rights violations and a system resembling apartheid. A recent tribunal has confirmed these apartheid conditions, urging for change and recognition of Palestinian rights. The historical context reveals that the conflict is rooted in the displacement of Palestinians by Zionist movements, which have led to systematic ethnic cleansing and violence. The suffering of Palestinians, including children, continues under military occupation, with severe restrictions on movement and access to basic needs. Many argue that the ongoing violence is a desperate response to oppression, highlighting the need for a resolution based on international law to allow coexistence. The narrative emphasizes the shared suffering of Palestinians, regardless of their religious background, under the current political and military regime.

Interviewer and Professor engage in a wide-ranging discussion about October 7 and its aftermath, focusing on verified facts, contested claims, and the broader political context. - What is known about October 7: Professor states roughly 1,200 people were killed that day, with about 400 combatants and 800 civilians among the dead. He relies on authoritative human rights reports (UN Human Rights Council Commission of Inquiry, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch) but notes these organizations are not infallible. He maintains there is no compelling evidence that the deaths in Israel’s subsequent reaction were a significant portion of the total, and he rejects the claim that Hamas weaponized rape on October 7, arguing there is no evidence of mass rape and criticizing the idea as a political tactic. - Eyewitness testimony: The Professor criticizes eyewitness accounts that portray Israel as “the most moral army,” suggesting such testimonies may be biased by nationalistic or military-culture factors in Israel. He emphasizes that Israelis’ strong sense of unity and service in the army can influence narratives, and he questions the consistency of eyewitness reporting given the context of the festival attack. - The rape allegations: The UN Commission of Inquiry says it has no digital or photographic evidence of rape, and other officials (Pamela Patten, UN special envoy for conflict-related sexual violence) did not present direct forensic evidence. Patten examined thousands of photographs and hours of digital evidence but concluded there was no direct evidence of sexual violence on October 7. The Interviewer notes other outlets’ reports (BBC, New York Times) on rape and other abuses; the Professor counters by reiterating the lack of direct forensic or digital evidence and highlights inconsistencies in testimony and reporting. - Hamas planning and the larger context: The Professor traces Gaza’s humanitarian crisis back to long-term occupation, blockade, and international indifference. He cites early 2000s descriptions of Gaza as a concentration camp and describes deteriorating conditions through 2008 and beyond. He argues that by late 2023, Gaza faced extreme unemployment and social destruction, suggesting that the decision by Hamas to act on October 7 was shaped by a sense of urgency and desperation in a context where regional incentives (e.g., Saudi Arabia joining the Abraham Accords) had shifted, effectively signaling that Gaza’s prospects were collapsing. He asserts that Hamas sought diplomacy and international law prior to October 7, citing past attempts at truces and engagement with human rights organizations, and notes that these efforts were largely ignored. - Comparison of political paths in the region: The Interviewer draws contrasts between Gaza and the West Bank, noting the latter’s relatively different trajectory. The Professor argues that Israel’s goal is to subordinate rather than conquer, contrasting it with Egypt or Jordan and highlighting the Gaza situation as distinct from other regional dynamics. He asserts that the West Bank’s path remains different from Gaza’s, though critical of settlements. - The Trump peace plan and the Security Council resolution: The Professor explains that a UN Security Council resolution endorsed the Trump peace plan and established a “board of peace” with sovereign powers in Gaza, effectively transferring authority to a body headed by Donald Trump. He claims the resolution endorses the Trump plan in full and that the board answers to no external accountability, with a six-month reporting requirement to the Security Council. He contends that this amounted to “handing Gaza over” to Trump and argues that temporary transitional authority would be insufficient to address reconstruction and humanitarian needs, given Israel’s stated aim of making Gaza unlivable. - Arab states’ support and the geopolitical calculus: The Professor argues that many Arab states supported the resolution due to coercive pressure or incentives (e.g., economic consequences if they refused), and he criticizes their alignment as a “death warrant” for Gaza. He expresses deep skepticism about the motives of regional actors and dismisses the idea that their support signals genuine commitment to Gaza’s welfare or a viable path to reconstruction. - The future of Gaza: The Professor asserts that Gaza is effectively “gone,” citing World Bank and UNKDA/IMF assessments that rubble clearance and reconstruction would require decades (minimum 15 years for rubble clearance, potentially 80 years for reconstruction under previous rates). He contends that Israel’s objective has been to render Gaza uninhabitable, leaving residents with a choice to stay and die or flee, and he critiques the willingness of various Arab states to endorse terms that lock in that outcome. - Closing stance: The discussion ends with the Professor reaffirming his grim assessment of Gaza’s prospects under the current framework, while the Interviewer expresses a mix of skepticism and concern about regional dynamics and the path toward a two-state solution.

Israel was built on the ruins of another society, displacing and disregarding the native people. Israel denies responsibility for the costs of the occupation despite 26 years of military control. Without the resources left by the British, Israel wouldn't exist. Palestinians in Gaza suffer due to Israeli policies, with destroyed economy, deportations, and living in dire conditions. This is unacceptable, even for the Jewish people who have also suffered. Victimizing others because of past victimization has its limits.

- On October 7, approximately 1,200 people were killed, with about 400 combatants and 800 civilians, according to the speaker who bases this on authoritative human rights reports (UN HRC Commission of Inquiry, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch). He notes that these organizations do not have perfect records but argues there is no compelling evidence that contradicts Hamas and other armed groups in Gaza being responsible for the majority of deaths, while there is no evidence that Israeli actions within Israel constituted a significant share of the total deaths. - The speaker contends there is no credible evidence of weaponized rape by Hamas on October 7. He discusses the UN Commission of Inquiry’s distinction between rape and sexual violence, and Pamela Patton’s report, which he says concluded there was no direct digital or photographic evidence of sexual violence on October 7, despite reviewing thousands of photographs and hundreds of hours of digital evidence. He argues the rape claim relies on assertions by observers and advocates rather than verifiable forensic or photographic proof. - Eyewitness testimony is challenged as being part of a pattern that could promote a narrative of Israeli moral exceptionalism; the speaker asserts that some eyewitness accounts “tell you Israel is the most moral army in the world” and notes that many such testimonies come from sources described as biased, with Israeli soldiers often embedded in a siege mentality. He suggests that Israeli society, with a citizen army and strong military culture, may have incentives to shape or repeat certain stories. - The speaker discusses Hamas’s planning and motives in the years leading to October 7, describing Gaza as an “inferno under the Israeli occupation.” He cites early 2000s characterizations of Gaza as a concentration camp by Israeli officials and UN/Human Rights reports, and notes the blockade and economic collapse. He explains that in 2023, Gaza was described by The Economist as a “rubber sheep” and by others as a toxic dump, with extremely high unemployment (60% of youth) and a deteriorating social fabric. The anticipated end of Gaza’s struggle was seen when Saudi Arabia joined the Abraham Accords, leading the speaker to say Gaza’s fate was sealed. - The discussion on Hamas’s shift to violence notes Hamas had previously tried diplomacy, international law (including cooperation with human rights organizations after Operation Cast Lead and Operation Protective Edge), and even nonviolent strategies like the Great March of Return (endorsed by Hamas). The UN report on the March of Return found demonstrators overwhelmingly nonviolent, while Israel was accused of targeting civilians. The speaker argues Hamas pursued multiple avenues but faced a harsh blockade and a failing prospect of improvement. - Regarding the broader regional context, the speaker asserts that the West Bank and Gaza have different trajectories; Egypt and Jordan are seen as neutralizing or stabilizing forces, while the West Bank’s situation is contrasted with Gaza’s harsher conditions. He argues that the goal in places like Egypt is to neutralize, whereas Israel’s policy toward Gaza is described as cleansing or subjugation, a distinction he says differentiates regional dynamics. - The speaker critiques the UN Security Council’s handling of Gaza, describing a 2023 resolution (UNSC Resolution 2803) that endorses the Trump peace plan and creates a “board of peace” with sovereign powers in Gaza, headed by Donald Trump, and notes that no external body supervises this board beyond a quarterly report to the Security Council. He claims this arrangement renders Gaza effectively under a transitional administration, with reconstruction timelines alarmingly long (fifty to eighty years to rebuild) and a minimal chance of Israel withdrawing from the green zone. - He argues that after October 7, the board’s governance path, the Trump plan, and Arab states’ support for the resolution collectively resulted in Gaza’s “death warrant,” with reconstruction hampered by deliberate destruction and political arrangements that preclude meaningful self-determination or statehood for Gaza. - On international reactions, the speaker notes varying support for Gaza among Arab nations and emphasizes that some regional actors (including Turkey, Egypt, Qatar, and others) endorsed handing Gaza to Trump; he accuses these states of compromising Gaza’s future for broader geopolitical aims and accuses several of “slavery and subservience” to such outcomes. - The concluding portion covers Gaza’s future: the speaker reiterates that Gaza has effectively been made unlivable, with rubble and toxic contamination delaying any reconstruction for decades, and he maintains that the path to a two-state solution remains contested, with the Trump-led framework limiting Palestinian rights and self-determination. He indicates he has just completed a book on UN corruption and the Security Council’s role in Gaza, titled Gaza’s Gravediggers, and suggests that the UN declaration of war on Gaza nullifies international law regarding self-determination.

The situation for Palestinians is catastrophic due to egregious actions, including collective punishment. Israel's behavior flouts international rules. Peace is impossible without acknowledging the cost to Palestinians and recognizing that Israel's identity is intertwined with the Palestinian tragedy. Israel was constructed on the ruins of Palestinian society through mass dispossession. The Oslo Accords state Israel bears no responsibility for the costs of the occupation, despite decades of military control. An Israeli journalist stated that Israel took over the country from the British, who left infrastructure that allowed them to build Israel. If they had taken Palestine the way they left Gaza, there would be no Israel. Gaza is one of the most criminal places on earth because of Israeli occupation policies, for which they bear no responsibility. Victimizing others because of past victimization is unacceptable and must have limits.

In Israel, Palestinians face violence, house demolitions, and property confiscation. Many Israelis expect them to accept these conditions, but when they react violently, they are blamed. Israelis hold millions of Palestinians under occupation, depriving them of basic rights. While violence is not justified, it is a realistic outcome of living under occupation indefinitely. Criticizing the killing of innocent civilians in Gaza can lead to persecution, job loss, and even imprisonment. Mainstream media fails to show the reality of Gaza, and those who speak out face threats and harassment. The speaker shares their personal experience of being fired, interrogated, and put in solitary confinement for their views.

Turns out that shortly before this attack, the government had ordered the removal of all military presence from that area. Hamas was literally given a free pass to enter and start their operation. Israeli defense forces that were supposed to be around Gaza were placed around the West Bank because of security concerns so that the the Gaza envelope was left unoccupied with military. They say around 60 to 80% of that area was left without the IDF forces that were supposed to be there. A year ago, there was a military operation in Gaza to prepare for such events, and ongoingly there are trainings for these kind of scenarios. What happened? Two years ago, there was a successful deployment of underground barriers with sensors to alert exactly on these kind of terrorist breaches. There's no way in my view that Israel did not know of what's coming.

- 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.

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.

In Gaza, Israel's actions were supported by a small percentage. The policy of open fire at the border fence is backed by over 90% of Israelis. Israeli society is described as fascist, with politicians advocating for violence against Palestinians, even babies. The speaker criticizes journalists for not acknowledging this as the norm in Israel. The country is seen as a settler colonial state built on ethnic cleansing. The left is said to be non-existent in Israel.

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?'

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?”