reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Our borders will extend from Lebanon to Saudi Arabia and from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates, where the Kurds, our allies, are located. We have the Mediterranean behind us and the Kurds in front, with Lebanon needing Israel's protection. Additionally, we plan to take Mecca, Medina, and Mount Sinai to purify these significant locations.

Afshan Rutansi introduces Going Underground from Dubai, noting a century since the San Remo conference and the subsequent carving up of West Asia, Palestine under British mandate, the 1948 establishment of Israel, the Nakba, and current dynamics: Israel’s land grabs in the occupied West Bank, genocidal actions in Gaza, and an expanding military footprint, alongside U.S. military defeats since 1945 in Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan, adding Iran to the list. Daniel Levy, a veteran Israeli peace negotiator, president of The US Middle East Project, joins from London. Rutansi frames Netanyahu’s Israel as associated with genocide in Gaza, attempts to destroy Iranian civilization via Trump, and cites Israeli defense minister Katz calling for the elimination of an entire family, with a green light from the United States. She asks Levy about a broader aim: replacing Iran and Saudi Arabia as superpowers in West Asia. Levy challenges the normative acceptance of Katz’s rhetoric, noting that while some view Israel’s expansion as territorial, the broader project is about extending hard power hegemony. He argues that Israel seeks to create a regional environment where surrounding states are collapsed, chaotic, or easily co-opted by Israel. He contends the war aims to weaken Gulf States to push them toward reliance on American power, and that Netanyahu has spoken about Israel becoming a global superpower, including corridors for Gulf oil to market via Israel’s ports. Rutansi reminds of the GCC’s report that airspace was not provided for U.S. and Israeli warplanes and returns to the question of whether this signals a broader strategy. Levy notes that U.S. ambassador Mike Huckabee’s remarks reflect a greater Israel concept extending beyond Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. Levy discusses Turkey (Turkiye) as a potential target, citing Naftali Bennett and the idea of isolating Turkey to allow further actions. He emphasizes Israel’s transparency about its aims, and explains that regional states are reacting with concern, recognizing Israel as a destabilizing geopolitical actor due to its expansive agenda. Rutansi asks whether Netanyahu “wins” despite domestic scrutiny, referencing a New York Times piece implying Netanyahu’s victory. Levy says this reflects a shift: while expansion continues, there is continuity in policy, and a notable change is that Israel now operates in a highly fluid geopolitical moment. He argues that Israel sees a window of opportunity in an era of waning American primacy and seeks to exploit it before restraints reassert themselves. He describes a new elite, more religious nationalist ideology, and leadership within the military aligned with this agenda, contributing to a more aggressive posture. Levy stresses that the impunity following Gaza dampened domestic backlash enough for policymakers to pursue more aggressive actions, including pursuing confrontation with Iran. They discuss whether Iran’s strategy—strikes against GCC bases—will lead to nuclear considerations; Levy questions whether Israel can deter or be contained in a multipolar world and raises concerns about a WMD-free West Asia. He notes debates about whether Israel could threaten with nuclear weapons or whether a broader push toward nonproliferation and regional disarmament is likely. They examine American public opinion shifting toward Palestinians, the potential impact on U.S. policy, and whether Israel’s increasing independence from American support could hasten a regional alignment or escalation. They touch on Gulf diplomacy with Iran, UAE–Iran talks, and Israel’s potential reaction if Trump’s administration backs away from a hard line against Iran. Levy concludes by highlighting whether a reinvention of Zionism is possible or whether Israel’s current project may be unsustainable, given shifting regional dynamics and domestic political constraints. The program signs off with condolences to victims of NATO-nation wars and promises part two to continue the discussion.

Petzales Mothritch a une vision maximaliste de la terre promise. Elle inclut les territoires palestiniens, mais aussi des territoires en Jordanie, en Syrie, au Liban, en Irak, en Égypte ou encore en Arabie saoudite. **English Translation:** Petzales Mothritch has a maximalist vision of the promised land. It includes the Palestinian territories, but also territories in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, and even Saudi Arabia.

Israel is seen as a Western outpost under attack by Islamic forces, leading to the belief that the entire West should support Israel. The father of modern terrorism, Menachem Begin, founded Israel in 1948 and had no qualms about being called the father of terrorism. He was responsible for the bombing of the King David Hotel and the Deir Yassin massacre. Begin became prime minister in 1977 and invaded Lebanon. The Likud party, led by Begin and now by Bibi Netanyahu, believes in a biblical state of Israel that expands beyond its current borders. This ideology is deeply ingrained in Netanyahu, whose father was a leader in the New Zionist Organization. The Likud party's doctrine remains unchanged.

The documentary traces how Benjamin Netanyahu’s five-year leadership has been shaped by an intertwined mix of legal peril, personal power, and hard-line security strategies. It opens with the contention that the threat of prison has relentlessly focused Netanyahu’s decisions, with the corruption trials and the October 7 war serving as two central pressures that have driven his governance. One analyst asserts that the engine of his politics is the corruption cases, and that a perception of immunity from the law has underpinned his endurance in office even as investigations proliferated. Multiple speakers describe Netanyahu as someone who “does not respect the law” and who treats any challenge to him as a threat to his rule. They argue that the October 7 attack and its aftermath were leveraged as instruments to stay in power, with the country kept in a “forever war” that creates a constant sense of danger and dependency on his leadership. A political analyst from Channel 13 contends that Netanyahu “took all of us hostage in this trial.” The narrative introduces a network of personal and political patrons surrounding Netanyahu. Arnold Milchan, an American-based Hollywood producer with ties to the prime minister, allegedly facilitated gifts and favors in exchange for political access, raising charges about “breach of trust.” Shaul Alovich, a powerful Israeli tycoon, is described as a figure who could secure or extract critical favors from Netanyahu, including gaining control over the news site Walla in exchange for a signature that Alovich needed for financing. The far-reaching influence of such relationships is framed as evidence of a broader pattern in which “government officials are not allowed to take gifts” and where Netanyahu’s circle repeatedly sought to bend or bypass formal limits. The role of Sarah Netanyahu is highlighted as a decisive force in the Prime Minister’s circle. She is portrayed as a major decision-maker who selects advisers and policy directions, sometimes described as running the country alongside Netanyahu. The documentary also revisits a 30-year-old sex scandal involving Netanyahu and how it allegedly shaped his relationship with Sarah and his political strategy. The program introduces a long-running tension between Netanyahu and the Israeli judiciary, culminating in a 2023 push for judicial reform. It is argued that the reform aimed to “break the bones of the system” by altering how judges are chosen, the structure of the police, and the powers of the attorney general, thereby allowing Netanyahu greater leeway to handle his legal predicament. Supporters and critics are shown debating whether the reform is primarily about shielding Netanyahu from prosecution or about broader democratic changes. Public demonstrations against the reform are described as the largest in Israel’s history, with tens of thousands of protesters expressing strong opposition. The documentary also delves into Netanyahu’s relationships with fringe right-wing partners Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, describing the coalition as “the country’s most far-right ever government.” It portrays Smotrich and Ben-Gvir as driving forces for expansionist policies in the West Bank and for a hard-line approach to security and policing, including provocative rhetoric about annexation and ethnicity. The influence of the right on security policy is linked to actions in the West Bank and to a broader strategy that includes controversial measures against Arab citizens within Israel. On the Gaza front, the program presents a devastating toll: thousands of Palestinians killed in Gaza, with escalating casualty figures cited (ranging from 15,000 to 25,000 in various passages). Hostage families express desperation for the return of their loved ones, arguing that hostages must come home before any broader war aims. In this view, the war’s continuation and the handling of hostages are central tests of Netanyahu’s leadership, and critics argue that the pursuit of “total victory” against Hamas has produced a costly and unsustainable cycle, while some participants question whether military pressure alone can secure a durable peace or hostage releases. The documentary closes by noting the perceived disconnect between Netanyahu’s claims of expertise on terrorism and the real-world outcomes of his policies, suggesting that while he speaks to international audiences about leadership and security, the domestic and regional consequences of his strategies have produced deep-seated resentment, ongoing conflict, and a politicized judiciary that remains a flashpoint in Israeli politics.

Ayman Ramel from Beirut sent in a super chat saying today was very tough as Southern Lebanon faced ongoing devastation, with the scene described as Israel’s continued bombing of Southern Lebanon in real time. The IRGC (Iran) characterized the attacks as an Israeli savage massacre, claiming hundreds killed in one of the biggest strikes on its capital, and pledged revenge. Tehran called the action a breach of the ceasefire with the United States and claimed it represented a historic and crushing defeat for the US, promising retaliation against Israel. Israel’s IDF spokesperson said they would continue operations against Hezbollah as long as Hezbollah threatened Israeli civilians, accusing Hezbollah of targeting civilian infrastructure and displaying video of attacks in a populated city center. An initial casualty figure cited before the broadcast was around 256, but the number was believed to be higher. Ben Swan, an independent journalist, joined to provide on-the-ground context from Beirut. He reported that numbers of dead ranged from about 280 to 350, with injuries around 1,500. He noted more than 100 locations bombed that morning, highlighting the dynamic and fluid casualty count. He observed that Israel did not issue the usual warnings—no leaflets or cell-phone alerts indicating where strikes would occur—leading to civilians, including women and children, being killed with little or no forewarning. He emphasized that the affected areas in Southern Lebanon are historically Christian and home to long-standing communities, noting connections to biblical sites in the region (e.g., Cana’s wedding and Peter’s burial site) to illustrate the demographic being affected. He claimed Israel’s stated objective is to take Southern Lebanon up to the Litani River and to integrate it into a broader “Greater Israel” project, with Netanyahu’s office reportedly warning Lebanon’s army to move away from a bridge crossing the Litani River as a strategic target. This would geographically separate Northern and Southern Lebanon, according to the narrative aired. The discussion touched on broader political themes including debates about whether Israel’s actions reflect a broader tactic to project power or to distract from other regional pressures. The conversation linked the conflict to perceptions of American influence and strategy, including whether the United States has leverage to influence Israel’s actions. Some participants argued that US influence exists and that global opinion has grown more critical of Israel, citing condemnation from European leaders and shifts in international sentiment. They argued that Israel’s messaging has been effective in focusing attention on Iran, potentially allowing actions in Lebanon to proceed with less scrutiny. The speakers explored the idea that the conflict is part of a broader geopolitical strategy, including claims that the war serves to advance the so-called “Greater Israel” project, and discussed how Western powers, notably the United States, are perceived as entangled in regional dynamics. They contrasted perceived Israeli tactics with Russia’s more deliberate approach in Ukraine, suggesting Israel’s strategy aims to destroy civilian infrastructure to prevent return to the territory, whereas Russia has pursued more selective destruction. The program suggested that if China and other nations condemn the actions, international pressure could intensify, potentially escalating beyond a regional conflict. The speakers referenced a report from Breaking the Silence about Israel’s past Gaza operations, describing it as a “construction project” of destruction, to illustrate a pattern of strategic demolition of civilian infrastructure. In summary, the segment described an intensified conflict in Southern Lebanon with high casualties and widespread bombings, alleged lack of civilian warnings, and discussions about strategic objectives, US influence, and broader geopolitical implications, including potential global ramifications if international responses intensify.

Netanyahu's extreme government has faced challenges in holding office, with five elections in four years due to the inability to form a stable majority. Last year, he formed a coalition with the far-right, resulting in the most right-wing government in Israeli history. Notable figures in his cabinet include Itamar Ben Gavir, convicted on multiple charges including supporting a terrorist organization, and Bezalel Smotrich, who denies the existence of Palestinian history and culture. Smotrich advocates for seizing land in the West Bank and driving Palestinians from their homes, despite settlements being deemed illegal. Netanyahu has given him a prominent role in settlement affairs.

Benjamin Netanyahu relies on US support to veto UN resolutions against Israel and for military assistance. The idea of Israel as a biblical prophecy has been present since the 1970s, particularly among evangelical Christians in the US. Amid the recent conflict in Gaza, American evangelical pastors continue to reference biblical prophecies. Christian Zionism, which predates Jewish Zionism, is a belief that the return of Jewish people to Israel will lead to the second coming of Jesus Christ. This movement heavily influences US foreign policy, with over 100 evangelical members in Congress. Evangelical support for Israel extends to fundraising, organizing tours of the occupied West Bank, and opposing the two-state solution. Netanyahu uses scripture to appease his main supporters, the Christian Zionist movement.

Petzales Mothritch a une vision maximaliste de la terre promise. Elle inclut les territoires palestiniens, mais aussi des territoires en Jordanie, en Syrie, au Liban, en Irak, en Égypte ou encore en Arabie saoudite. **English Translation:** Petzales Mothritch has a maximalist vision of the promised land. It includes the Palestinian territories, but also territories in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, and even Saudi Arabia.

The speaker claims that Israel's borders will eventually extend from Lebanon to the Great Desert (Saudi Arabia) and from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates. The Kurds are described as being on the other side of the Euphrates and as friends. Lebanon is said to need Israel's protection. The speaker believes Israel will take Mecca, Medina, and Mount Sinai and purify those places.

The word "Israel" in the Bible refers to believers in God, not a place. Sabbatai Zevi tried to resettle Jews in Palestine in 1666 but was arrested. Zionism became political, supported by the British crown and Rothschild banking dynasty. In 1917, the Balfour Declaration led to British control of Palestine for Zionists. The UN granted parts of Palestine to Zionists in 1947, causing Palestinian displacement. Zionists, mostly Ashkenazi Jews, have Christian evangelical support. The temple of Solomon must be rebuilt for the messiah to come, conflicting with the Al Aqsa Mosque. Choose peace over conflict.

Speaker 0 asserts that Bezalel Smotrich and Ben Gavir are “literally talking about exterminating the entire population of Gaza.” Speaker 1 counters that they are not talking about extermination. Speaker 0 insists the statements are brazen, up front, and what they actually want to do. Speaker 0 adds that Hamas is involved in a separate context. Speaker 0 says, “The West Bank had nothing to do with what happened on October 7, but they're annexing that land anyway. They're raining terror on innocent people, innocent Palestinians.” Speaker 0 concedes, “I am willing to admit, because it's the truth, that what Hamas did on October 7 was a fucking atrocity,” specifically mentioning killing innocent people. Speaker 1 challenges acknowledgement of atrocities against civilians in Gaza. Speaker 0 asks about a hospital being tapped; Speaker 1 responds that it’s an old terrorist trick and they do it “all the time.” Speaker 0 asks whether the IDF's action was wrong. Speaker 1 concedes, “I'm sure they have committed what we would call war crimes, as every army does in every war.” Speaker 0 notes, “Including our own.” Speaker 1 agrees, giving the Civil War example: Sherman burned Atlanta and Vad, arguing that despite brutality, the North were the good guys fighting slavery, and also noting Israel is fighting to survive and is the front line in the Western world. Speaker 0 disputes this, saying much of the problems in the Middle East come from an expansionist policy and that if Israel wasn’t trying to continue expanding, they would not be dealing with the enemies they’re dealing with. Speaker 1 disagrees that they ever were expanding, arguing they “were attacked” and that they “never been trying to expand.” Speaker 0 claims Israel is trying to annex the West Bank, southern Lebanon, and Syria, and argues they have succeeded in doing so. Speaker 1 says these are lands where they were attacked from when Israel became a country in 1947; he claims Israel said, “we will accept half a loaf,” and asserts they had as much right to that land as anybody, with a historical presence since a thousand BC when King David had a lineage. Speaker 0 dismisses this lineage-based argument as irrelevant to the present. Speaker 1 counters that it’s relevant, and asserts that the notion of wiping out innocent people merely because one’s ancestors lived there centuries ago is not acceptable. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 calling Palestinians colonizers, and Speaker 1 arguing they are not colonizers; they assert that Israel is annexing land, which, in their view, is described as colonization.

The speaker explores the Israeli settlement movement in the West Bank, focusing on religious nationalists who seek to expand Israel and displace Palestinians. Settlers view the land as their divine right, citing the Bible. Following the October 7th attack, there's been a push to establish Jewish outposts in Gaza, supported by political figures like Minister Of National Security, Itamar Ben Govere. Daniela Weiss, a leader in the settler movement, envisions large Jewish cities throughout the West Bank and Gaza, advocating for the relocation of the Palestinian population. These settlements, while illegal under international law, are protected by the Israeli military. Settlers often come from other countries, drawn by the promise of Israeli citizenship. Palestinians face restrictions, military occupation, settler violence, and limited autonomy. Activists report increased pressure and displacement, especially after October 7th. Some settlers justify their actions as a response to Palestinian violence, while others believe in Jewish superiority and the divine right to the land.

For 30 years, I've been consistent in saying that the conflict isn't about a Palestinian state, but the existence of a Jewish state. Every time we've given up land, we faced terror. Israel must control the entire area from the river to the sea. A prime minister must be able to say no to even the best of friends, to protect our country. Translation (if needed): The speaker emphasizes the importance of Israel maintaining control over the entire region to prevent terrorism, and the need for a prime minister to be able to say no when necessary.

The speaker discusses the expansion of Israeli settlements into the Jordanian territory and expresses their belief that the borders of Israel should extend from the Nile to the Euphrates. They state that any land conquered by Israel will become part of the country and that the role of the Israeli people is to conquer the land and remove non-Jews from it. The speaker openly admits to being racist, preferring Jews over Arabs in various aspects of life. Another speaker briefly mentions the American conquest of Native American territory.

Israel is seen as an outpost of the West and is under attack by Islamic forces. The father of modern terrorism, Menachem Begin, was the Prime Minister of Israel and had no qualms about being called the father of terrorism. He was responsible for the bombing of the King David Hotel and the Deir Yassin massacre. Begin believed in a biblical state of Israel that extended beyond its current borders. This ideology is still followed by the Likud party and Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu. The Likud party took power in 1977, which was seen as a turning point in Israeli politics. Yitzhak Shamir, another leader of a militant group, was also part of this shift in power.

Rula and Mario discuss the broader and regional dimensions of the Israel-Palestine-Lebanon conflict, focusing on the perception of Israel’s actions, Iran’s role, and the future of Lebanon and the wider Middle East. - Rula frames the war as centered on the greater Israel project, describing the military occupation, domination, and violence in Palestinian, Lebanese, and Syrian territories as the core issue. She argues Israel is an occupying power under international law and questions the rationale of asking Palestinians and Lebanese to disarm while occupation persists. - Mario challenges the view that Israel as a single, unified actor always seeks expansion, noting that in Lebanon, Hezbollah’s presence arises from past Israeli actions and that some Israelis want coexistence with Lebanon. He contends there are variations within Israeli society, with some advocating for annexation or permanent conflict, while others prefer coexistence or diplomacy, though he acknowledges a radicalized current in Israeli politics. - The conversation moves to Iran’s role and regional dynamics. Mario argues the conflict has become regional and global, with Iran signaling willingness to act ruthlessly to mirror US and Israeli actions, and with other powers (Gulf states, China, Russia, the US) shaping the war’s scope. He asserts Israel’s strategic goals diverge from American goals, claiming the war serves the Greater Israel project and that Netanyahu has long pursued this vision, aided by a perceived, multi-decade alignment with American power and money from pro-Israel donors. - Rula emphasizes the internal Israeli political and social landscape, citing the Gatekeepers documentary as evidence that Israeli leadership has used Hamas and other actors as strategic tools, and she argues that the state’s actions are guided by a broader ideology (which she attributes to a form of Jewish supremacism) rather than conventional security concerns. She contends that Israel’s security narrative relies on perpetual conflict, and she asserts the United States has become financially and politically subservient to pro-Israel interests through campaign financing and lobbying. - The dialogue addresses US and international responses. Mario notes the US and Western support for Israel, while acknowledging criticisms of American influence. Rula counters by pointing out that US actions, such as sanctioning international courts to shield Netanyahu from war crimes prosecution, reflect a deep, structural alignment with Israeli policy. They discuss how this alignment influences regional dynamics, including the US response to challenges from Iran, Syria, and Hamas. - On Lebanon specifically, they debate whether Israel intends to annex parts of Lebanon or seek coexistence with Lebanese authorities and Hezbollah. Rula argues that Israel historically aimed to push toward annexation or subjugation of Lebanon, driven by a broader Greater Israel agenda, while Mario suggests Israel may prefer coexisting arrangements similar to Egypt and Jordan, though she counters that such coexistence would still come with coercive power dynamics and that Israeli policy has repeatedly demonstrated willingness to decimate Lebanon’s infrastructure and Hezbollah targets when framed as security operations. - The discussion covers ceasefires and ceasefire violations. They note that Hezbollah reportedly agreed to disarm and withdraw from certain areas, but ceasefire breaches occurred on both sides, including Hezbollah rocket fire and Israeli strikes. They debate who has honored or violated agreements, with Rula asserting that Israel breached ceasefires multiple times and Mario emphasizing parallel violations by Hezbollah. - They touch on the humanitarian and civilian toll, highlighting Lebanese displacement, destruction in Lebanon similar to Gaza, and the long-term risk of further fragmentation in the Middle East. Mario and Rula acknowledge Lebanon’s multi-sectarian society and express a lament for its potential loss of stability and coexistence. - Towards the end, they reflect on Israeli societal attitudes, referencing nationalist and supremacist sentiments inside Israel, including debates over Palestinian and Arab citizens, and they discuss the relative popularity of hardline policies among Israelis, contrasted with poll data that vary by source about two-state solutions or diplomatic options. - The exchange closes with mutual appreciation for the dialogue, a hint of residual mistrust in negotiated outcomes, and a light aside about a potential inquiry to an Israeli spokesperson about unpaid propaganda work, signaling ongoing attempts to scrutinize public messaging. Key points reiterated: - The war seen as part of a broader Greater Israel project, with occupation central to the conflict. - Iran and regional powers are pivotal in expanding the war beyond the Middle East. - Israeli internal politics, donor influence, and demographic shifts shape policy and willingness to pursue or resist further conflict. - Hezbollah and Lebanon are central but contested elements in debates about annexation versus coexistence. - Ceasefire dynamics reflect mutual distrust and ongoing violence on both sides. - There is a strong emphasis on the need to address underlying crises and the danger of perpetuating permanent warfare, with appeals to listen to diverse Israeli voices and to consider the humanitarian consequences for Lebanon and Palestinians.

Israel's main objective was to expand in line with the Greater Israel Project, targeting Iraq and Syria. ISIS, understood by many Muslims as forbidden, was created by the United States, Israel, and England. They execute people who don't convert to their religion. Hillary Clinton and Obama are said to have created ISIS. The secret to their power is America.

Speaker 0 explains that Netanyahu evokes Jewish history in his religious text and sentiment to rally support for attacks, and that Nurode explains this increases right-wing sentiment in Israel. Speaker 1 notes that when Netanyahu announced the offensive against Iran, he did not just discuss threats but invoked Jewish history, drawing parallels with Jews rising up against Persian enslavement more than two thousand years ago. Speaker 2 adds: “My brothers and sisters, in two days, we celebrate the holiday of Purim. Two thousand five hundred years ago in ancient Persia, an enemy rose against us with the exact same goal of destroying our people.” Speaker 1 continues: “A day later, Netanyahu invoked scripture describing the government in Tehran as Amalek, the ultimate enemy in the Old Testament, the enemy whose memory and existence must be erased.” Speaker 2: “We read in this week's Torah portions. Remember what Amalek did to you. We remember and we act.” Speaker 1 remarks that this is not the first time Netanyahu has used the Amalek reference to justify violence against an adversary. In fact, his reference to Palestinians as Amalek was cited during hearings in the genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice. Speaker 0 states that inciting religious fervor is not unique to Netanyahu; it’s a popular tactic among right-wing and populist leaders to rally support, and it often pays off. She cites opinion polls to illustrate how widespread these sentiments are: a Hebrew University poll on Israel’s war on Gaza found 75% of Jewish Israelis believe there are no innocence in Gaza; a survey by the Institute for National Security released last month shows 78% of Israelis consider Iran a serious threat. Speaker 1 adds that mixing scripture with mainstream politics is playing with fire and has led to talk of a greater Israel spanning from the Euphrates to the Nile River and erasing existing Arab countries in the process, an ambition referenced not only by Netanyahu but also by the head of the opposition in Israel. Speaker 0 concludes with the attribution: Jahan Bin.

The speaker discusses the Zionist plan for the Middle East, known as Greater Israel. They aim to expand their territory into Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and Egypt, including historic Palestine. The speaker expresses concern about this plan and suggests that Zionists will try to claim land in these countries by dividing them into smaller, weaker states, similar to what they did to the Palestinians. The speaker believes that this is why Israel's neighboring countries do not like them, as it is seen as a threat to their sovereignty. The speaker concludes by emphasizing that Zionists are determined to achieve their promised land by any means necessary.

Our borders will extend from Lebanon to Saudi Arabia's Great Desert, and from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates. On the other side of the Euphrates are the Kurds, who are our friends. Lebanon needs Israel's protection. Additionally, we aim to take control of Mecca, Medina, and Mount Sinai to purify those places.

Netanyahu understands the U.S. and currently has more control over U.S. foreign and defense policy than the U.S. president. The Israeli lobby has achieved its goal of unconditional U.S. backing. Netanyahu believes this control is temporary, so he's using this moment for Israel to establish permanent Israeli, Jewish, military, and political hegemony over the region, create greater Israel, and put everyone on notice that they are in charge. He is confident he has U.S. backing. The U.S. will not put vast numbers of troops on the ground because it doesn't have them to commit.

For 30 years, I've consistently said that the conflict is not about the lack of a Palestinian state, but about the existence of a Jewish state. Whenever we have evacuated an area, we have faced terrible acts of terrorism, whether it was in South Lebanon, Gaza, or Judea and Samaria. Therefore, I believe that in any future arrangement, Israel must have control over the entire area from the river to the sea. This is what sovereignty entails. I want to emphasize this truth to our American friends and prevent any attempts to impose a reality that would put us in danger. As the Prime Minister of Israel, it is important to be able to say no, even to our closest allies, when necessary, and to say yes when possible.