reSee.it - Related Video Feed

In January 2023, the speaker went to the Holy Land as a volunteer tour guide with their mother and a church group. The group was stopped by the IDF a half-mile from their destination. Soldiers with machine guns boarded the bus to check IDs. The speaker was told to stop recording to avoid arrest. The bus had to take a longer route. The bus driver said they were stopped because they were Palestinian and was rushing to avoid the Muslim Friday shutdown. At lunch, the electricity was shut off to the whole complex. A shopkeeper told the speaker that authorities often shut off the electricity to prevent them from making money from tourists. The speaker believes the electricity was shut off arbitrarily. The speaker feels that allowing young soldiers unchecked power leads to injustice. They found the Palestinian people they met to be kind, while many of the soldiers were hateful. The speaker's perspective on the conflict shifted after witnessing these events firsthand.

Speaker 0 explains that not all Republicans are registered with APAC, and that many colleagues would vote with him if not for political backlash back home. He says some Republicans tell him, “that’s wrong what APAC is doing to you,” and they want to talk to their APAC person. He notes that nearly everyone except him has an APAC person, which he likens to a babysitter who is always talking to you for APAC. When these members are in DC, they lunch with their APAC contacts, who have their cell numbers and keep conversations going. He mentions that four members of Congress have said they’ll talk to their APAC person to try to get ads dialed back. He questions why this isn’t more widely known, arguing that it benefits nobody for constituents to know they have a “buddy system with somebody who represents a foreign country.” Speaker 1 asks what APAC is, and Speaker 0 explains the concept further, noting that the APAC person is connected to the congressman and that this dynamic exists on the Republican side. He says the APAC person is embedded in the caucus presence, and that conversations with them occur when members come to DC. He remarks that this arrangement is not beneficial for public disclosure, so members don’t tell their constituents about it. Speaker 1 asks if any other country does anything similar. Speaker 0 responds emphatically that they do not: “Not only do they not have a Putin guy. Look. They don’t they they don’t have a Britain guy. They don’t have an Australian guy. They don’t have a Germany dude.” He asserts that APAC is the only country with someone who uniformly matches a congressman to an APAC contact, and that there is likely a spreadsheet at APAC mapping the APAC contact to the congressman’s votes on issues. He adds that APAC pays for trips for congressmen and their spouses to go to Israel; he notes he may not be the only Republican who hasn’t taken the APAC Israel trip, but he’s among a minority who hasn’t yet. Speaker 1 asks about the trip, and Speaker 0 describes it as “vacationy,” including visits to the Western Wall and other sites, and mentions swimming in the Dead Sea. Speaker 1 comments that Israel is a great country and that Jerusalem is wonderful, but clarifies that this appreciation is distinct from the government of Israel and its politics. Speaker 0 agrees that Israelis are entrepreneurial and publicly minded, and Speaker 1 shares a personal fondness for Israel, praising the country and its people, while noting the difference between the people and the government. Speaker 1 and Speaker 0 discuss their affection for Israel, with Speaker 1 distinguishing his personal love of the place from political influence, and both agreeing that Israel is a special place, with Speaker 0 emphasizing the distinction between people and government.

The segment discusses a recent effort in which Israel hosted about 1,000 American Christian pastors who were invited to sign forms pledging to be ambassadors for Israel within their congregations, including receiving plaques and certificates. A crowdsourced list of these pastors, compiled by a popular X user known as Gen X Girl, shows a concentration in the American Southwest (California, Texas, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado) with denominations including evangelicals, Baptists, Methodists, and many nondenominational churches. The participants’ willingness to pledge allegiance to a world government is emphasized as a point of concern, with the claim that “their allegiance belongs to God and no foreign government.” Pastor Jay Chase Davis of The Well Church in Colorado (not on the list) comments that the event is “pretty wild” and offers two understandings. First, he suggests understanding Israel’s political instincts and the biblical reality of how Christians should think about nation-states, citizenship on earth, and citizenship in heaven. He notes that Americans naturally favor an “American first” attitude, but asserts that the political entities of Israel relate to America because America is the global superpower, and that evangelicals have been fed a “twisted” scriptural interpretation about Israel and God’s redemptive plan. He posits that Israel is courting evangelical support because evangelicals form a large voting block, and that these pastors are being brought over to become ambassadors who will defend Israel in various capacities. He asserts that some dispensationalist teachings have led to views that could imply salvation apart from Jesus, which he labels as heretical, and argues this makes evangelicals vulnerable to manipulation. Speaker 0 asks why Orthodox and Catholic pastors aren’t on the list and what doctrinal reasons would exclude participation, while Speaker 1 explains that the trip likely targeted a specific demographic (evangelicals) due to their historical theological training (often influenced by dispensationalism) and political leverage. He describes the goal as a tour with credentialing to defend Israel and align evangelical leaders with Israeli interests, noting susceptibility due to confusion about Israel’s modern political actions and salvation doctrines. Philip’s question raises concern about evangelizing Israelis during such visits, suggesting it would not be well received; Speaker 1 confirms mixed reception and expresses suspicion that the mission may be more about indoctrination and political outreach than evangelism. For viewers concerned about their church’s alignment, Speaker 1 advises asking questions, emailing pastors, and potentially seeking a different church if the church’s stance becomes incompatible with one’s beliefs. He recommends consulting historic confessions (e.g., Westminster Confession of Faith, London Baptist Confession 1689) and engaging with educational resources such as his podcast Full Proof Theology and his work with the Center for Baptist Leadership.

The transcript weaves together a compilation of statements and reporting surrounding the 9/11 attacks, Israeli involvement rumors, and related investigations. - Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly said September has been good for Israel, claiming, “we're benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon and the American struggle in Iraq.” - CNN reported (and later acknowledged as false) a tape in which Osama bin Laden told his mother that something big was about to happen; bin Laden had consistently denied involvement in 9/11 and claimed Zionists were behind the attacks. Reports from Japanese, Chinese, and Indian outlets claimed bin Laden was killed in Afghanistan in 2001 and buried in an unmarked grave by his own men. There are claims from the Muslim world and some European figures that Zionist extremists staged the 9/11 attacks to ignite terrorism. - A commentator asserted that the war has targeted Israel’s Muslim enemies and is being fought and paid for with American blood, lives, and tax dollars. - A speaker argued that bin Laden, regardless of who committed the attacks, comes back to the Middle East, and urged the United States to dismantle the entire “evil empire of terrorism,” warning that without doing so, the terror network could develop nuclear capabilities and threaten the United States and its allies. - Observers described a lack of apparent shock among certain people in connection with the events, noting unusual behavior or reactions. - Five men arrested in a van were later identified as Israeli, with some connections to Israeli intelligence; they were turned over to the FBI. National security databases showed some of the men had prior Israeli intelligence or counterterrorism experience, and one admitted serving in an Israeli army anti-terrorist unit and refused a lie detector test for an extended period. A speaker emphasized loyalty to country when discussing military service. - Fox News and others reported that up to 140 Israelis had been detained prior to September 11 in an ongoing, broad investigation into suspected espionage by Israelis in the United States. Government documents described hundreds of incidents across U.S. cities that investigators said could indicate organized intelligence gathering. The “country A” in a General Accounting Office document was said to be Israel, described as conducting aggressive espionage against the U.S. despite being an ally, with Israel possessing substantial resources to achieve its collection objectives. - Investigators questioned the possibility that some Israeli agents had advanced knowledge of the attacks, suggesting there is explosive but not necessarily conclusive evidence when aggregated. A recurring theme was the question of how such agents could have known, given the events. - Allegations of foreknowledge included claims that Israeli agents were forewarned and filmed the event on Israeli television. Some individuals detained or questioned described their presence in Israel as journalists or documenters. The broader question centered on whether Israelis gathered intelligence in advance and whether it was shared or withheld. - The transcript also recounts the failure to account for certain details (e.g., passport survivals, disappearance of voice recorders) as well as assertions that anthrax letters, later linked to a U.S. Army lab, were used to deflect blame toward Muslims. - Two accounts describe a white Chevy van linked to Urban Moving Systems, a moving company whose employees were alleged to have connections to Israeli intelligence. The FBI issued a nationwide alert about the van, and two suspects were reported in custody after explosives were found in a vehicle near the George Washington Bridge. CBS reported that two suspects were in FBI custody and that the truck contained enough explosives to damage the bridge, with some accounts noting a prior alert about a van on the way to destroy the bridge. - Overall, the material presents a network of claims and investigations involving alleged Israeli espionage, foreknowledge of 9/11, intelligence operations in the United States, and specific incidents surrounding the George Washington Bridge and related arrests.

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.

And at that point, we were taken for another round of questioning, this time related to our allegedly being members of Mossad. The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event. Our purpose was to document the event. The five Israelis were detained for ten weeks and finally deported on immigration violations.

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.

Speaker 1 recalls asking someone, presumably a friend, about something. The friend responded that he was Israeli and would do certain things for his country. Speaker 0 notes that this got the person into big trouble. Speaker 1 says he accepted the answer, almost.

Speaker 0 recalls a meeting with the queen, where she warned him to be cautious due to unknown forces in the country. Speaker 1 dismisses this as a commercial book's account, emphasizing the importance of police reports based on evidence. Speaker 0 believes the queen was referring to security forces. Speaker 1 points out that this is just one person's interpretation and cannot know the queen's thoughts.

I met a Jewish man on the subway, and we discussed the situation in Amsterdam and Israel's efforts to evacuate those under attack. He made a compelling point about the necessity of a Jewish homeland, emphasizing that it allows us to protect ourselves when needed. The recent attacks have highlighted the importance of Israel, demonstrating to the world why it is essential for Jewish safety and security.

Speaker 0 describes concerns from June 2005 that Israel wasn’t preparing to attack Iran anytime soon, and that there was hurry to roll out a sequence of events as planned. The sequence described starts with Israel attacking Iran, with retaliation by either Iran or China after Iran is struck with a nuclear weapon. This leads to a limited nuclear exchange in the Middle East, followed by a ceasefire. He heard this being planned in the meeting and says it is being choreographed, “like the script for a movie.” In this rollout of the scenario, as the world looks on with horror, people will demand from their governments heavy controls over travel, over communication, over people who meet, and over people who protest in the streets. They want to prevent crazy bombers in airplanes and in shopping malls. Because people will be driven into fear, they will request, demand, and insist on heavy controls from their governments, which will be justified. This is where the martial law situation in Western countries is intended to come about. The speaker emphasizes that this is just the start of a much bigger and pretty horrifying story.

Speaker 0 urges everyone to make noise, stating that if anything happens to them, it will be another war crime added to Israel's list. Speaker 1 reports they are being intercepted, assures everyone present is safe and unwounded, and emphasizes that no one was wounded until the time they ordered their vote. Speaker 1 asks to raise the alarm.

Speaker 0: Of course, it was wedged between the two giant Israeli bodyguards the whole way. You want security, the Israelis know what they're doing. Exactly. So it was not the vacation I I I planned, but

Speaker says they’ve been in Israel many times; "The whole country's a fortress." They find the story hard to believe. "I've been to that Gaza border. You cannot go 10 feet without running into a 19 year old with an AR 15 or an automatic machine gun that is an IDF soldier. Right? The whole country is surveilled." He raises questions: "Was there a stand down order? Was there a stand down order? Six hours? I don't believe it." "Israel's the side of new side of New Jersey." He notes a helicopter ride from Jerusalem to the Gaza border is "forty five minutes. Six hours." "They're live streaming the killing of Jews."

During our time in Israel, we spoke to Palestinians, pollsters, Israeli Members of the Knesset, journalists, and people with various viewpoints. We discovered that the security wall is mostly a fence, with only 5% being an actual wall. Palestinians can enter Israel freely as long as they pass through airport-like security. However, Israelis are prohibited from entering certain areas of the West Bank due to safety concerns. We also observed a military hospital treating both Israelis and Syrians, including Syrian women who were victims of ISIS. This experience has led me to question the feasibility of a two-state solution and consider the importance of Israeli control in maintaining peace and security in the region.

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

The speakers recount their trip to Israel from a Christian and Western perspective, describing a sequence of confrontations, observations, and reflections that challenged long-held beliefs about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Upon arrival, they say the truth behind the conflict revealed itself through persistent, consistent events. They detail being interrogated by a young Israeli soldier who warned of terrorists, and hearing a gunshot on their street, which they later learned involved a 15-year-old boy found with a pocket knife at a checkpoint, the photo of the weapon allegedly staged to minimize its size. They describe entering the West Bank, noting a massive wall and a thick military presence, and warn that these patterns resemble apartheid, drawing parallels to what they had learned about apartheid in South Africa. They recount passing through checkpoints, gates, and the wall, and observe the military presence as a recurring feature of the landscape. One speaker recalls encountering dehumanizing imagery at apartheid museums and the way it mirrored the locals’ treatment. A Palestinian scarf (kaffir) purchased by Janti is discussed, with the seller claiming the scarf represents unity and equality, while the group notes the confiscation of the scarf near the Western Wall and questions why a symbol representing a people group cannot be brought into a religious site. They recount a visit to the church believed to be the birthplace of Jesus, where the priest—a native Arab—reveals he is Christian, challenging their assumption that all Arabs are Muslim, and addressing the broader misconception that Palestinians are Muslims. The speakers challenge the notion that the conflict is a religious war, arguing instead that it is racist and describes “ethnic cleansing.” They reflect that what they were taught about Israel and Palestine does not align with their experiences, prompting ongoing reflection and questioning. They suggest that as Christians, their visit leads to a reevaluation of what they had learned, and one speaker mentions writing a book about moving from Islamophobia to helping families in Gaza, asserting a moral obligation for travel creators to present the full truth beyond hopeful highlights. The conversation touches on social responsibility in media and public platforms: one speaker notes the tension between supporting family livelihoods and maintaining an online platform with a duty to truth. Personal family dynamics are touched upon, including a father who did not call on a birthday, and the broader sense of urgency about global involvement. They conclude by endorsing South Africa’s role at the ICJ, affirming that involvement is necessary and that they are proud of South Africa’s legal actions, feeling that the country is on the right track.

The speakers were questioned about allegedly being members of Mossad. They state they are from a country that experiences terror daily and their purpose was to document the event. The five Israelis were detained for ten weeks and finally deported on immigration violations.

The speaker states they did not trust Israelis, "not as far as I could throw them," and that the CIA doesn't allow Israelis into headquarters because they would bring gifts containing listening devices. According to the speaker, 100% of the gifts from Israelis had bugs in them, even at a safe house in Virginia. The speaker claims that 100% of their colleagues didn't trust Mossad. In contrast, the speaker trusted the British the most because their national interests are closely aligned.

Speaker A: The IDF trains American police officers and ICE officers in Israel? They train with US ICE, with US Homeland Security. NYPD. NYPD. And that's what's called through a SME program, subject matter exchange, where our police, etcetera, train with them. So, these National Guard soldiers that will soon be in or are in Chicago have trained with and trained with Israel habitually for years. So when you look at all of these pieces of who do we have operating on the streets of Portland and the streets of New York and on in DC and who's going into Chicago, all components and elements that have trained hand in hand with the IDF or the Israeli Ministry of the Interior Gendarmerie paramilitary police. Speaker B: That's absolutely amazing. I also That's not a coincidence. They do antisemitism training, not just physical training, but brainwash training, basically, for them too. Speaker A: When we entered Israel, they took us on the Hospa tour. They took us to Kibbutz B'Ari. They took us to the Nova Film Festival site, and they also took us to Sderot, which is the overlook just outside of Northern Gaza City in Beit Hanun. It's on the Israeli side of the border Right. That overlooks all of Gaza City. Mhmm. They've turned that into a spectacle. It's a picnic site. Really? You can go up there. There's vending machines. There's an area to park. There's an area where you can get your panoramic view with Gaza in the background, and if you time it just right, there might be a bomb that drops for your photo.

There are no terrorist attacks in Switzerland or America, unlike other places. Air travel is strict, as even small items like Swiss knives or nail clippers are not allowed. The speaker believes that bombs are not brought on planes by passengers, but rather by those with diplomatic passports or airport staff. They mention an incident in Italy where 80 people died in a terrorist attack, which was allegedly orchestrated by the Italian secret services.

The speaker details a security career with frontline work in Iraq and Afghanistan. They’ve provided security services to the president of the United States and other high-ranking members of the U.S. government, and they’ve protected diplomatic personnel, high-net-worth corporate clients, media personalities, investigative journalists, and the general public. They continue this work as a SWAT team leader and executive protection specialist, and have been repeatedly recognized for high-level professionalism, proficiency, and knowledge of security measures across those fields. The narration signals ongoing analysis of past events, suggesting the speaker is evaluating what happened within this security context in complex environments.

Nadav Shoshani and Mario discuss the Israel-Lebanon situation, Iran’s role, and broader regional dynamics. Key points: - On Nadav’s claim verification: Nathaniel is alive, and Nadav confirms he has five fingers “as much as I know,” vowing to make sure. - AI and information warfare: Mario notes Iran is doing a lot of work on AI and that, when there are no real achievements, they use AI to create appearances of achievements. Nadav agrees that information warfare is strong and that Iran’s AI videos appear unconvincing, citing tunnels and such as examples. - Lebanon and potential invasion: Mario highlights concerns that 450,000 troops were called up and that a large invasion could bring back memories of the 1970s–80s. Nadav clarifies that the 450,000 figure refers to what might be needed or called up, not what has already been mobilized. He states Israel has taken steps limited to targeting Hizballah threats to civilians and is not currently conducting a wide ground operation in Lebanon. A decision for a full invasion has not been made, though it appears increasingly possible. He notes there are discussions and that Macron (France) may be brokering behind-the-scenes negotiations that could avert an invasion. - Objectives and strategy in Lebanon: Nadav explains Hizballah cannot be an armed group threatening both countries. He emphasizes military options exist but that diplomatic avenues have produced limited success. The immediate threat is Hizballah’s rocket and UAV fire against Israel (over 1,200 rockets and UAVs launched toward Israel, over 100 per day). Hizballah has reportedly deployed hundreds of Radwan forces into southern Lebanon, engaging Israeli troops. Israel is expanding its defensive measures and striking specific targets to push Hizballah away from the border. The aim is to remove a threat, not to expand territory. The Lebanese Armed Forces’ attempts to clear terrorists were less effective in the last two weeks, while UN missions previously failed to achieve lasting security. Nadav stresses there is no war against the Lebanese people; many Israelis would welcome friendship with Lebanon, and messaging and actions are aligned to protect civilians and strike terrorist targets with advance warning. - Territorial considerations: Nadav says the Israeli border area is the focus, with limited figures on actual Lebanese territory under Israeli control; the border area includes hills where Lebanon sits above Israel. He asserts that most Israeli activity is near the border and within specific locations tied to intelligence on terror threats. - Personal reassurance to Lebanese civilians: Nadav reiterates Israel has no war with the people of Lebanon and that Israel’s actions are against Hizballah. He underscores that if Hizballah stops posing a threat, Israeli forces would not need to be there. - Iran and the broader threat: Nadav discusses diminished Iranian attacks but ongoing risk. Israel and the US coordinate closely, with ongoing operations to neutralize missiles and launchers. About 70% of Iran’s missile launchers have been neutralized, and Iran’s leadership is described as being in disarray and difficult to target from the sky. Iran’s use of drones and missiles to pressure Gulf states and US bases continues, with Israel monitoring and countering UAV production and launch capabilities. Iran’s ability to affect energy infrastructure is acknowledged, but Nadav asserts that Israel has targeted fuel depots that power Iran’s war machine, while Iran has previously targeted energy facilities in the region. - Oil depots and strategic strikes: Nadav contends Iran targeted civilian energy infrastructure before Israel’s actions and characterizes Israel’s strikes as precise against fuel depots fueling Iran’s war effort. He notes ongoing cooperation with the United States and stresses that Iran’s strategy centers on pressuring global economics and leveraging civilian targets. - Supreme leader rumors and whereabouts: Nadav touches on rumors about the supreme leader’s health and location, saying there are question marks about his condition and that he has not heard reports of him going to Moscow; he suggests the leadership is “on the run” and hiding, with public statements increasingly written rather than spoken. He asserts there is evidence of long-term intelligence gathering against the Iranian leadership, and that the information is not produced overnight. - End note: The discussion closes with praise for Israel’s intelligence capabilities and a caution that talks and on-record planning continue, with a recognition that the situation remains dynamic and risky.

Speaker 0 asks, "What was the scariest moment of the journey? Scariest. It didn't happen. It could have been scary."