reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 explains that there are activities that are completely off the radar, done in collaboration with other organizations, producing content that they publish with their own anarch. Speaker 1 adds that the Israel project is supplying white label, i.e., unbranded content, to other outlets. Speaker 2 notes that they’re putting together a lot of pro-Israel media through various social media channels that aren’t the Israel Project’s channel. Speaker 3 and Speaker 2 describe many side projects aimed at influencing the public debate, and that these efforts are kept secret because they don’t want people to know these side projects are associated with the Israel project. Speaker 1 details that Tip runs a collection of Facebook communities covering topics from history and the environment to current affairs and feminism, with affiliations to the Israel project deliberately vague. Speaker 3 questions why these groups can’t be connected to the Israel project. Speaker 2 responds that the aim is for people to view them as objectively as possible. He states there’s a team of about 13 people working on a lot of videos and explainers on a range of topics, with only roughly 25% of the content being Israel or Jewish-state related. Speaker 4 comments that the Israel brand is increasingly toxic, so it’s not possible to sell Israel directly; instead, you need to have other hip, innocuous, fun material, into which Israel content is slipped from time to time. Speaker 3 suggests that the rest of the non-Israel material is meant to enable the Israel material to pass more easily, describing it as the key strategy to blend in everything. Speaker 2 reiterates the goal of blending in all content, ensuring the Israel-related material can pass as part of a broader, non-Israel-led narrative.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss a historic shift in American public opinion regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict. - Speaker 1 notes that public opinion on who voters sympathize with shifted dramatically in the wake of the current war. In October 2023, Americans favored Israel by 48 points; now, they favor the Palestinians by 1 point. He says he reviewed polls since the question began in the 1980s and that this is the first time Palestinians lead on this question, marking a historic shift away from the Israeli position toward the Palestinians. - He emphasizes that the shift was led by Democrats, moving from Democrats favoring Israel by 26 points to Palestinians by 46 points, describing it as a roughly 70-point swing and stating that, for the first time ever, more Americans sympathize with the Palestinians over the Israelis. - Speaker 0 adds that the shift is “a first that I have seen in my lifetime” and credits independent media and journalists reporting from Gaza for bringing images to social media, including images of civilians and alleged Israeli actions. He asserts that without on-the-ground reporting, people wouldn’t have seen certain images, asserts that journalists were killed by the IDF, and claims those images contributed to waking people up. - He contends that APAC is panicking, citing a new ad and a rebranding as “America first,” and argues Israel has lost the media war and the narrative, including some conservative and evangelical support (referencing Charlie Kirk’s base). - Speaker 1 details a parallel shift within the Republican Party, noting a significant age-based divide. Among Republicans over 50, they sympathize with Israel by 66 points; among those under 50, they sympathize with the Palestinians by 25 points. This creates about a 40-point gap, with younger Republicans leaning more toward the Palestinians than older Republicans. - Speaker 0 adds that Israel has hired pro-Israel influencers—paid about $7,000 per post—targeting the youth to reel back pro-Israel sentiment in the conservative youth vote. He notes these influencers were primarily young, implying a deliberate strategy to mobilize younger voters, while older voters are less in need of such outreach. - The speakers conclude that this combination of media exposure, shifts in party and demographic alignments, and targeted influencer campaigns constitutes a broad, historic realignment in American attitudes toward the conflict.

Speaker 0 asserts that another revolution is coming, aiming to achieve a broader peace, describing Israel’s conflict as an eight-front war—Jews against Rome, with the United States as the new Rome—and stating that Rome and Jerusalem clashed over values, a tragedy the Jews lost but must win next time. Speaker 1 adds that Jews against Rome have shifted from defense to offense. Speaker 2 notes that weapons evolve and swords do not work today, implying the need for new tools; Speaker 1 emphasizes that the battle requires the genius that created Apollo, pagers, and penetrated Hezbollah to prepare for this fight. Speaker 2 argues the most important battlefields are social media, with the next war to be decided online as much as offline. Speaker 0 designates this as the eighth front: the disinformation campaign. Speaker 3 and Speaker 0 discuss the scale of online manipulation, claiming billions of dollars are invested in the information battlefield by NGOs and governments, and asserting that money drives the effort. Speaker 6 and Speaker 7 describe policies to prohibit harmful stereotypes about Jews and to deplatform those who propagate them; they claim monitoring online spaces, including social media, messaging apps, video games, and cryptocurrency, and sharing intelligence with the FBI. Speaker 7 and others reference a spectrum of platforms and formats—podcasts, short-form video, Wikipedia, LLMs—and condemn antisemitism online, including “Hitler admires, Stalin admires, Jew haters,” while insisting on countermeasures. Speaker 8 and Speaker 9 discuss TikTok as a focal point, asserting that for every thirty minutes spent on TikTok, users become 17% more antisemitic, with carnage imagery from Gaza influencing perceptions; there is a stated problem with TikTok shaping youth attitudes. Speaker 10 and Speaker 6 describe redefining terms like Zionist as a proxy for Jews and Israelis, framing such language as hate speech; Speaker 11 indicates a desire for counterintelligence and critiques current curriculum, while Speaker 1 notes co-authoring Sunday school curricula with the ADL. Speaker 11 and Speaker 6 discuss developing technology to train LLMs and to combat antisemitism, with collaboration announced with OpenAI, Alphabet, Anthropic, Meta, and Microsoft; Speaker 10 notes a network of two dozen Jewish organizations feeding intelligence. Speaker 1 outlines a program to measure, monitor, and disrupt extremist content, with a full-time team of 40 analysts; Speaker 12 mentions monitoring campuses, digital networks, activist groups, and public officials, and that PhDs and academics support the effort. Speaker 13 and Speaker 14 discuss unifying data into a single platform, investing in intelligence, and mobilizing organizations to share information and fight common enemies; Speaker 12 emphasizes constant recording and reporting, aiming to mobilize allies. Speaker 15 and Speaker 9 reflect harsh strategies against antisemitism, including deportation and criminal measures, while Speaker 9 notes threats against those who push antisemitic conspiracy theories. Speaker 16–17 recount legal actions against antisemitic rhetoric and antisemitism lawsuits; Speaker 18 describes the J7 diaspora network meeting to share information and best practices; Speaker 19–20 advocate reform of education and even limiting the First Amendment to protect it, arguing for control over speech. Speaker 3 and Speaker 20 discuss enforcement and punishment for anti-Israel or antisemitic speech; Speaker 1 highlights training 20,000 officers annually in extremism and hate via partnerships with law enforcement going back to the FBI’s origins. Speaker 29 calls opponents “a small bunch of wannabe Nazis” and asserts intent to pursue justice; Speaker 0 closes by proclaiming that history remembers action, not denial of hatred, and that we are on the cusp of a new age where technology’s powerful benefits can drive positive outcomes in agriculture, health, transportation, and other fields, enabling Israel to become a primary power rather than a secondary one.

I have been called to join the digital warfare task force, fighting to defend Israel in the media. Misinformation, blind hate, anti-Semitism, and lies are spreading, and we must stand together to fight them. Join me in taking a bold stand for Israel, as this battle is not just ours, but yours too. Together, we will win this war. Thank you.

Stop Antisemitism was built for confronting the global explosion of Jew hatred unleashed since the attacks of ten seven. Since that day, we have featured more than 1,000 antisemites on our platforms—not theorized about them, not quietly documented them, but featured them publicly, clearly, and with evidence. The results speak for themselves: approximately 400 of these Jew haters have faced real consequences including firings, suspensions, and expulsions. More than 300 remain in an active investigatory state across universities, corporations, DEI departments, unions, hospitals, nonprofits, and yes, federal government agencies. And five arrests to date tied directly to threats and violence of antisemitic conduct we helped expose. This is what accountability looks like. This is what action looks like. This is what pushing back hard looks like against the tidal wave of hate that has consumed The United States and global population. From our founding, Stop Antisemitism has operated on one guiding belief: Antisemitism thrives when there are no consequences. So we created consequences, a lot of them. We created visibility. We turned the spotlight towards those who targeted our community, making silence impossible. On campuses where Jewish students were hunted through libraries, where professors glorified Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists, where mobs shut down our buildings and administrators hid under desks, we stepped in. We documented the offenders. We worked with attorneys, lawmakers, and victim families, and we ensured the message was not unmistakable: If you target Jewish students, your actions will not disappear into the darkness. We will shine a light on you that thanks to Google and SEO, follow you for the rest of your life. When you look for a job, when you look for a spouse, when you look for a nanny, when you look for anything, our work will always be documented. Again, thanks to Google and SEO. In corporations where DEI leaders smeared Israel, excused Hamas, we pressured CEOs; some resigned, many were terminated, but policies were changed thankfully from governmental to art institutions. Online, where anonymous accounts spread violent threats, we traced patterns, elevated evidence, and worked with authorities leading to arrests from Florida, South Carolina, New York, California, and Texas. And we're not slowing down sadly. Today, Stop Antisemitism, I'm proud to say, runs one of the most robust antisemitic enforcement operations in The United States, monitoring campuses, digital networks, activist groups, and public officials, documenting incidents in real time and mobilizing millions of people, of allies that are quietly by our side. But the fight is bigger than the exposure, and it's about securing a future—A future where Jewish students can walk across a quad without being screamed at. A future where employers understand that anti Semitism is not activism. It's bigotry and it will cause you to lose your job. A future where fact, not propaganda, shapes policy. A future where global institutions from Google to chat, GPT, from governments to universities to media, finally treats Jew hatred with the seriousness of other minority-targeted hate. To get there, we need three things: action, real action as I listed; accountability; relentless vigilance, because antisemitism does not take breaks. It doesn't wait for elections. It doesn't disappear because we are exhausted and tired, and when I tell you myself and my team are exhausted and tired, that's the least of it. Stop antisemitism has never been more essential, more strategic, or more effective than it is now, but we cannot do this alone. The demand, the volume of tips, the number of investigations, sadly, it continues to grow instead of decrease. If we want a safer future for the Jewish people, this is the moment to stand together and act. We have to push harder to make it clear that Jewish safety is a nonnegotiable. Tonight, I'm asking you to always be in the fight with us, not just in spirit, but in true action. Participate in calls to action. Write letters to your governmental officials. Speak to the teachers and the college administrators that are making, if it's not your friends and kids, it's making other community members feel unsafe. When we act, lives change, And antisemites learn, sometimes for the very first time in their lives and history, that targeting Jews will come at a price, and together we can ensure that Jew hatred never goes unanswered again. As a former refugee from The USSR, I say this with all of my heart, God bless The United States, God bless Israel, and I'm Israel High. Thank you so much.

They express that recognition by Microsoft or the UN means little in the face of ongoing genocide, emphasizing that “the genocide, that's when you will have our respect” and that words from politicians or organizations do not solve the problem. Shadow banning is described as a process where big tech restricts content reach for users, aligning with policy or regularity to support the propaganda they serve. Content labeling before model training could be biased (e.g., from IDEV), leading to content being flagged and pro-Palestinian users banned. Meta later calls such issues “bugs,” but they are viewed as deliberate actions to suppress certain content. They claim Larry Ellison, owner of Oracle, is the biggest contributor to the “Friends for Idea Yeah. Charity,” with last contribution around 16,000,000. They assert that if a person who is friends with Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel owns 80% of TikTok, and Netanyahu promotes using TikTok and X to spread their narrative, it demonstrates the danger of social media in shaping global views and the propaganda machine. They accuse these entities of trying to control social media to brainwash younger generations, potentially restricting pro-Palestinian speech. Lobbying is described as highly structured, with knowledge of where to go, who to speak with, and organizations that move money to actions aligned with those goals. They urge each person to contribute their own skills toward free Palestine, noting strengths in tech, music, journalism, etc., and to create alternatives and support one another to change the dynamic. They argue that Zionists became powerful by mutual support, while others are weaker due to lack of unity, asserting that unity would strengthen their movement. Hejazi introduces himself as the founder of Upscroll. He is Palestinian, born in Jordan, currently living in Australia, with seventeen years of experience in Big Tech. The genocide’s ongoing impact changed his life, leading him to feel complicit via his work at big tech and to witness shadow banning of friends, family, and others posting about Gaza. He mentions that 60 relatives were killed in Gaza. He quit his successful professional career to build an alternative social media platform and decided to devote himself to creating Upscroll, an independent platform to counter the influence of Meta, X, and TikTok. Upscroll launched a couple of months ago and is similar to Instagram, X, and soon TikTok, with tens of thousands joining monthly. On launch, the platform saw rapid uptake: hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands as users sought an alternative to shadow bans, seeking to have their content reach others. The platform is presented as a response to the pain of posting without reach and the desire to become independent from dominant platforms.

In this video, the speaker addresses a fake tweet that was attributed to them. They explain that the tweet, which supposedly made a joke about Palestinian babies, is completely fake and provide evidence to support their claim. The speaker also points out that the fake tweet includes a view count, which is not possible because view counts were not publicly viewable in 2021. They accuse those who shared the fake tweet of trying to discredit them and all Jews. The speaker expresses their determination to stand up against their opponents and asserts that their lies will not succeed.

There is a Zionist playbook from 2009 that guides people on how to defend Israel, with rules for communication and language to use. It advises showing fake empathy and avoiding certain phrases. The playbook aims to shape the narrative around Israel and Palestine, influencing how people talk about the conflict. This scripted approach is seen in media, politics, and interviews, shaping public perception and discussion.

"But October 7 in the Hamas raid in Southern Israel changed minds on this app. Explain how." "over 60% of the content that is pro Hamas, pro Palestine content, it's actually generated in Bangladesh, Malaysia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and then it is actually amplified in TikTok users' feeds in The United States." "the majority of the anti Israel content, it's actually generated and created overseas, and then the algorithm is tailored to push that content here in America." "it's not actually generated here in The United States. It's not a reflection of the sentiment here in The United States." "But think about the fact that in Israel, they have TikTok, and in Israel, they have manipulated the algorithm to show 90% of the sentiment is for pro Hamas in Israel." "Do you really think that Israelis after October 7 feel that that is the case?"

Okay Emily, I would love to hear your take on everything that has been discussed so far. For those of you that don't know me, I speak a lot about antisemitism. I even try to bring Israel into the conversation. I know that's not what we're talking about here, but I do a lot of public speaking to combat antisemitism. I actually joined this room because I've spoken for ADL at events as a freelancer. We see eye to eye on some issues, and I feel like it's important to speak up in times of antisemitism.

The discussion centers on how events escalated and a perceived parallel to the alleged “Dancing Israelis” on a moving truck during 9/11. Speaker 0 suggests that the alleged dancers may have viewed the outcome as America finally understanding what they had been suffering from over the prior 60 years, and as a way to end it. Speaker 0 also describes a “relief” feeling that the war might be over, but Speaker 1 shifts to a different point. Speaker 1 says an article was sent that debunked the Dancing Israelis claim as a “nothing burger.” Speaker 1 adds that a prominent figure who promotes the 9/11 narrative “crushes it.” Speaker 1 describes an alternative explanation: the individuals were Israelis who worked for a scam moving company, had gotten out of the IDF, were making money, and were there to document the event. In this account, anyone who saw the planes would take a picture, so the claim of foreknowledge used by others is rejected. Speaker 1 also addresses a claim that a video asserts foreknowledge, noting multiple vans. Speaker 0 responds by questioning why Mossad would send agents in a fake moving truck to watch what was already visible on the news, arguing that they could have seen it that way. Speaker 0 further claims that the story depends on timing and coincidence: the “exact three Mossad agents” in a city of about 8 million would have precisely run into law enforcement and been arrested. Speaker 1 reiterates that it is a “nothing burger” and says this was learned the previous week. Speaker 1 notes that people might object to their position, while also stating that they posted it on Twitter and pointed others to a broader “whole thing.” Speaker 1 then broadens the context by saying that there are many theories about major events, including October 7th, where some Israelis think it was an inside job, and that the larger issue is the rise of influencers and monetization, mentioning “audience captured” and referencing their own departure in connection with monetization and destructive/ideological actions they were prompted about.

Over the past decade, anti-Semitism has shifted online, making it easier to generate and spread hateful content. To address this, the Ministry of Diaspora Affairs developed a system that monitors anti-Semitism on the entire internet, focusing on Facebook and Twitter. Using artificial intelligence, the system identifies around 10,000 anti-Semitic posts daily out of 200,000 suspect posts. By making this information public, it aims to shame individuals and deter anti-Semitism. Additionally, a command center in Tel Aviv analyzes the data and takes action, such as notifying law enforcement or city officials about specific instances. The speaker urges Facebook and Twitter to take responsibility and not allow anti-Semitism under the guise of freedom of speech.

The discussion centers on the Iran ceasefire, Iran’s negotiating stance, and how Israel’s actions and U.S. political dynamics are shaping perceptions and potential outcomes. - President Trump describes the Iran ceasefire as “on life support” and says Iran’s peace terms are “totally unacceptable” and “garbage.” Iran’s position, according to Iranian media cited in the segment, treats Washington’s peace proposal as a surrender document, insisting on the end of U.S. sanctions, release of frozen Iranian assets, the right to sell oil freely, and control of the Strait of Hormuz—a nonstarter for Washington. Trump also threatens more war, aligning with Netanyahu’s preferences. - On the ceasefire, another participant notes “the ceasefire remains in place for the time being,” while a speaker mocks the peace proposal as weak and life-supporting, using medical imagery to describe its fragility. - Netanyahu’s appearance on 60 Minutes is summarized as him “begging for more war,” outlining how to remove enriched uranium and how to achieve that goal, with emphasis on military action. He suggests “you go in” and take it out, implying American and Israeli cooperation, though one participant stresses not to reveal military plans and cautions about the feasibility and risks of such missions. There is also a claim that Netanyahu implies the United States should bear primary responsibility for military actions if needed. - The dialogue expands to a broader critique of Israel’s conduct in Gaza and the West Bank, with one participant stressing that Israel is “besieged on the media front” and that propaganda has harmed Israel’s image. There is a claim that social media manipulation by other countries has contributed to negative impressions of Israel, and a consensus that Israel has not used adequate or effective propaganda in its defense. - The panel discusses the ethics and consequences of censorship, with one speaker arguing against censorship yet acknowledging the impact of social media manipulation on public opinion. They contend that attempts to silence critics or punish those who oppose Israel’s policies are counterproductive and harm Jewish communities globally by conflating Jewish identity with Israeli policy. - Anna Kasparian (The Young Turks) weighs in, describing Netanyahu as untrustworthy and arguing that Israel’s actions—targeting hospitals, education centers, and civilians—have generated global criticism. She asserts the issue is not merely a social media phenomenon but an Israel-centered one, citing the ongoing destruction in Gaza and military actions in Lebanon. She argues that U.S. support for Israel is a political question driven by lobbying, and she predicts growing political pressure against leaders who prioritize Israel’s interests over American interests. - The panel critiques U.S. political alignments, noting that Democratic and Republican positions have not yielded a clear consensus on Iran. They argue that diplomacy has varied across administrations (Obama’s JCPOA vs. other strategies), and they contend that Netanyahu’s influence has pushed the United States toward a harder stance on Iran, often aligning with Israel’s regime-change objectives. - Looking ahead, the speakers caution against a renewed kinetic war with Iran, referencing military experts who argue that the United States lacks the capacity or strategic justification for a large-scale confrontation. They emphasize the high costs, the effectiveness of Iran’s drones, and the risks of escalating conflict, suggesting that a more restrained approach or different leverage might be necessary. - The closing segment underscores uncertainty about future conflict, with a warning that a return to bombing Iran could be counterproductive and that political and public opinion dynamics in the United States are shifting, especially regarding support for Netanyahu and Israel.

We have formed a counter propaganda group in collaboration with the IDF and the foreign ministry. We are working closely with their spokespeople to distribute their marketing materials. Carolina, who has a Telegram following of 185,000 people, will be using her resources to help with this.

Christian influencers. "I call it the woke reich." "they're insane." "We have to fight back." "Our influencers." "the weapons change over time." "you can't fight today with the swords." "you can't fight with cavalry." "And you have these new things, you know, like drones, things like that." "we have to fight with the weapons that apply to the battlefields in which we're engaged." "the most important ones are in social media." "And the most important purchase that is going on right now is class Followers. Five followers. TikTok. TikTok. TikTok." "One." "And I hope it goes through because it's it can be consequential." "And the other one what's the other one that's most important?" "We have to fight the fight." "To take give direction to the Jewish people and give direction to our non Jewish friends or those who could be our Jewish our friends." "Are we gonna succeed with everyone? No." "Will there be a strong counterpoint? Yes."

The discussion centers on social media visibility, censorship, and the political and military implications of the conflicts discussed, especially Israel’s role and U.S. policy. Speaker 2 says Kushner follows them so they are not blocked and asks whether Netanyahu blocked them. Speaker 0 responds that Netanyahu cannot stand even minor “jabs,” implying a need for “all or nothing” treatment. Speaker 2 then describes a post: Netanyahu shared a video greeting “Happy 4th of July” and “Happy 250th Independence Day,” and Anna replied “fuck you,” which drew about twice the engagement of Netanyahu’s post. Speaker 0 says they pinned the reply and emphasizes that replies gaining more engagement than the original tweet is “very rare.” Speaker 0 argues that Israel cannot reverse its public-relations damage and claims Israel and supporters rely on bans, algorithm control, and influencing AI so the public will “forget.” They argue that, even where people have been favorable to Israel, international views are shifting and that the ongoing war against Iran began “specifically on behalf of Israel.” They also connect continued kinetic action with potential global economic depression if the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, predicting that people will redirect anger toward Israel due to shared suffering. Speaker 0 contrasts the spending on bots and social media manipulation with what they say is “everyone knows” about underlying responsibility. Speaker 2 asks whether censoring critical voices could affect younger generations. Speaker 0 says young people are “too savvy,” and points to Nick Fuentes being banned on most platforms but continuing to build a “pretty significant audience” on at least one remaining platform, arguing that bans can create “forbidden fruit” appeal. Speaker 0 adds that calling people anti-Semites previously worked but has become less effective because it is now applied broadly, “including Jews.” They claim that this conflation of the Jewish population with the Zionist project has harmed Jewish people and insist Zionism is “a political ideology” rather than a religion, ethnicity, or identity. The conversation shifts to YouTube and algorithms. Speaker 0 says YouTube is “pretty good,” but argues the algorithm rewards repeating the same topics and punishes deviation; they describe their channel as heavy on foreign policy and say domestic coverage performs worse. They also claim algorithm incentives can push audiences toward more extreme thought. Speaker 2 asks whether public perception has changed since earlier discussions about censorship. Speaker 0 says public opinion against Israel continues to grow and cites Associated Press and NORC polling, including that 30% of American Jews say Israel has carried out a genocide in Gaza. Speaker 0 also discusses a “disconnect” between populations and political leadership in Western countries and Gulf countries, and warns that systems not representing constituents can lead to unrest, uprisings, or civil war amid economic strain and concentrated wealth. They then focus on U.S. legislative action. Speaker 0 discusses “Section 219” in the National Defense Authorization Act, claiming it would merge the U.S. military with the IDF, calling it problematic and saying the House Armed Services Committee gatekeeps whether a full House vote occurs. They criticize committee assignment processes and the Senate parliamentarian system and legislative filibuster as mechanisms that prevent bills from passing. Speaker 2 asks about who is talking about Section 219. Speaker 2 references Massey and Ro Khanna (and others) raising attention, plus Trita Parsi’s Quincy Institute analyzing it first. Speaker 0 says voters should pressure committee members by contacting their offices “incessantly,” naming them, and warning of political consequences if they “sell our country out” to Israel. Speaker 0 states the provision “has to be stripped out.” The conversation then turns to NATO allies, Turkey, and U.S.-Israeli dynamics. Speaker 2 describes escalating rhetoric about a possible Turkey conflict, noting statements attributed to Smotrich and Netanyahu, and contrasts that with Trump praising Erdogan, considering F-35 approval, and removing CAT sanctions. Speaker 0 says details may be unknown, speculates Trump might have personal business motives, and adds an alternative explanation: Turkey is described as an important component for European/NATO preparation for a face-off with Russia. They argue the U.S. may eventually have to choose between Israeli ambitions and NATO plans involving Turkey, with Israel wanting war with Turkey. Speaker 0 also mentions internal Israeli politics, stating that Ben-Gvir is reportedly favored in Israel polls and interpreting that as reflecting Israel’s cultural and political direction. They say they do not expect Israel to pull back and describe Israel as “lashing out.” Speaker 2 discusses the shifting U.S. posture, arguing that if unconditional support changes, Israel would have to adapt. Speaker 0 says they see public sentiment shifting in the U.S. and describes formerly “forbidden” topics becoming discussable. Speaker 0 argues Israel is bombarded with a 24-hour news cycle intended to terrify Israelis and create a sense that “the whole globe hates them,” distinguishing what they call propaganda aimed at the Israeli public from what they describe as bad-faith behavior by Israeli politicians and media figures. They debate the rationale for actions against Hezbollah and describe Hezbollah as a resistance group formed after Israel’s occupation of southern Lebanon. Speaker 0 argues that disarming neighboring countries is “ridiculous” and that engaging in behavior that creates “reasons to resist” perpetuates resistance. In the middle of the transcript, Speaker 2 shares emotional examples from Gaza. They mention Palestinians watching World Cup matches amid rubble and describe an organizer, Mohamed El Wahidi, who helped set up giant screens for families to watch Egypt vs. Argentina but was killed in an Israeli airstrike before kickoff, with two brothers aged 8 and 10 also killed. They ask how anyone could respond without being upset and say Gaza is being forgotten. Finally, Speaker 2 returns to “strikes back and forth” between the U.S. and Iran. Speaker 0 says Israel did not play a role in “the latest developments,” but maintains the war is “because of Israel.” They argue the conflict should be called “war,” criticizing attempts to downplay it as not war or as a “special military operation.” Speaker 0 claims U.S. actions are provoking Iran, that diplomatic solutions for transiting vessels through the Strait are the only option, and that continued hostilities deplete weaponry, fertilizer supply, and strategic petroleum reserves.

"Goal of the day is to teach people how to edit in Wikipedia, which is the number one source of information today in the world." "The house oversight committee demanded Wikipedia turnover identifying info for users who may be spreading anti Israel content based on a report from who else? Our friends at the ADL." "one recent report raised troubling questions about potentially systematic efforts to advance anti Semitic and anti Israel information in Wikipedia articles related to conflicts with the state of Israel." "the Israeli regime regime's propaganda complex has dedicated courses and entire teams focused on editing Wikipedia so that it reflects their genocidal worldview." "Go to Wikipedia right now. Look up October 7 and see if there is any mention of the literal thousands of Palestinians who have been held hostage."

Jonathan asks for commentary on Nick Fuentes, what countermeasures are effective, and what the government’s role should be in being critical of such a platform. The respondent explains that Nick Fuentes’ second name is Joseph, and that Fuentes is a Hispanic person described as an open, unapologetic racist, homophobe, and anti-Semite. He notes that Fuentes has been incredibly effective at spreading his message thanks to X and social media, which act as super spreaders of anti-Semitism and hate, making Fuentes like patient zero. He points out that it didn’t help when former President Trump had Fuentes over for dinner at Mar-a-Lago, and he criticizes those in power who don’t renounce Fuentes. JD Vance has done so, but the current right faces a challenge with elevated bad voices like Fuentes, Tucker Carlson, and Candace Owens, while there are good voices on the right such as Ted Cruz, Ben Shapiro, and Mark Levin who push back on figures like Speaker Johnson and the revolting lunatics. To defeat rising anti-Semitism on the right, he believes it must come from the right; to defeat rising anti-Zionism on the left, it must come from people on the left. At AADL, the goal is to provide data and tools and to operate behind the scenes rather than publicly targeting Fuentes or Hassan Piker; the speaker even calls Hassan Piker “Hamas Piker” and notes his large platform on Twitch, Steam, YouTube, and Instagram. The speaker emphasizes working to get platforms to enforce terms of service to pull down the most offensive hate speech, or compel action from the platforms. However, he also stresses the need for people on the right to take down figures like Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes, and for people on the left to support similar efforts. The second speaker adds that in a sermon about the nuance of every human being, they did not mean Nick Fuentes.

I have been called to join the digital warfare task force, fighting to defend Israel in the media. There is a battle between good and evil, with misinformation, blind hate, anti-Semitism, and lies. We must fight together and stand on the right side of history. Take a bold stand for Israel, and we will win this war. Thank you.

The speaker holds a unique role at a tech company, focusing on the Jewish diaspora. Their work involves empowering Jewish communities globally and addressing their concerns on a local level. A key aspect of this role is removing hate speech and content targeting Jewish people, including Holocaust denial and harmful stereotypes. The speaker emphasizes working with global partners to refine content policies and address coded antisemitism. Beyond content removal, the speaker highlights using platforms to promote authoritative information. A partnership with the World Jewish Congress and UNESCO directs users searching for Holocaust-related terms to factual resources. The speaker also considers how to address antisemitism and promote education within emerging technologies like VR, AR, and XR, collectively known as the metaverse.

Anthony Kevin, known as Danks from Dankster Intel, discusses how the Iran war discussion connects to a broader foreign influence operation. He asserts that Clock Tower X LLC is registered as a foreign agent for the government of Israel and, per FARA, is supposed to disclose which Salem Media properties and influencers receive messaging and how much is paid, but it does not. He identifies Brad Parscale as the principal of Clock Tower X and says Parscale “owns and has multiple other websites” that “do AI manipulation and bias” and “geofence American churches.” He argues that foreign governments don’t need to buy politicians directly anymore; they buy the architecture of influence through media distribution networks like Salem Media, which reaches tens of millions weekly across radio, podcasts, digital properties, and television. Key claims and points: - Clock Tower X LLC is a foreign agent for the government of Israel, integrated into Salem Media and aligned properties, with Parscale as principal. The organization purportedly performs AI manipulation and bias, and geofences American churches. - Salem Media is described as the ideological distribution infrastructure for conservative and Christian conservatives in the U.S.; its network influences audiences that shape beliefs about morality, truth, and political action. - The White House family (Don Jr. and Laura Trump) hold significant stakes in Salem Media. Salem Media also owns 30% of MXM, the company behind Don Jr.’s app, implying “business marriage” between the Trump family and Salem. - The money pathway: Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) has a Hasbara budget reportedly totaling about $729 million for 2026, with notable increases from prewar levels (e.g., $150M in 2025). The budget flows not as direct government-to-organization grants but through three intermediaries (including Havas Media entities in Germany and the U.S.), then into multiple American entities including Clock Tower X LLC, with the aim of delivering narrative frameworks, monthly updates, and “high impact voices, distribution nodes.” - The operation includes two main streams: Stream one channels through Clock Tower X LLC (mandated to deliver narrative messaging, monthly updates, and influence/network maps) into Salem properties and related networks; Stream two goes to Show Faith by Works LLC (with a stated aim of geofencing 303 mega-churches and Christian universities) and Bridges Partners LLC, with large budgets dedicated to shaping content and messaging that portray Israel positively and frame Palestinian perspectives as extremist. - The process is not only about paying influencers (e.g., reports of $7,000 per post) but also about sophisticated, covert influence that uses AI, data, and narrative shaping. Danks explains “generative engine optimization” to flood the internet with biased content that AI identifies as authoritative, influencing coverage and search results that shape what influencers read and repeat. - The operation’s scale is described as the most prolific influence campaign besides APAC, due to its reach across media, apps, and social platforms, plus deep psychographic profiling of Trump coalition audiences (including Gen Z targets) and continuous data feedback through comments, chats, and API access to build ever-better persuasion maps. - The legal and oversight angle: FARA requires disclosure of who’s paying whom and for what messaging, but Danks contends the documents show only general references to “Salem Media Network properties and aligned properties,” constituting a FARA violation. He notes Pam Bondi dismantled the oversight mechanisms, reducing the likelihood of federal enforcement and shifting to civil actions. - On what this means for accountability, he argues that if this were Democrats or Russia (instead of Israel), the reaction would be equally strong, and he calls attention to the ongoing concerns about foreign influence infiltrating U.S. media and political discourse. - Danks references his site, americansfortransparency.org, which hosts an interactive map and documents detailing the flow of funds, the three intermediaries, and the participating entities (Clock Tower X LLC, Show Faith by Works, Bridges Partners) with direct FAIR filings and budget details. He emphasizes the site provides a way to explore the evidence and engage with the material directly. During the discussion, the host and Danks touch on the broader implications for media integrity, election culture, and how a foreign-influence framework might embed itself into mainstream conservative media networks, arguing the infrastructure enables propagandistic content to appear as editorial guidance or “narrative messaging” from within the organization. The conversation ends with acknowledgment of the scale and sophistication of the operation, a reiteration of the website americnasfortransparency.org, and thanks to Danks for sharing his analysis.

My Israel has arranged an instruction day for Wiki editors to teach people how to edit in Wikipedia, the number one source of information today. If someone searches Gaza flotilla, we wanna be there, to influence what is written there, how it's written, and to ensure it's balanced and Zionist in nature. A participant says they came to learn how Israelis and Jews can defend Israel online, particularly in Wikipedia. They describe Wikipedia as a complex system and note that edits against Israel were erased or undone. They argue this knowledge is important for anyone who wants to defend Israel online, to see when information isn't quite right, to counter one-sided storytelling, and to ensure the other side of the story gets the right coverage. They state that content is filled with antisemitism, anti Zionism, and garbage, and call for activists to promote defense of Israel.