reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 states that over 6,000 bodies have been found, citing information from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and other government bodies. Speaker 1 questions this claim, asking for clarification on where these bodies were found and if the Truth and Reconciliation Commission reported finding 6,000 bodies. Speaker 1 asserts that as a journalist, Speaker 0 should be concerned about the accuracy of their claims. Speaker 0 requests to complete their questions.

Speaker 1 asserts there is no genocide in Gaza and that Palestine is a name invented by the Roman Empire. Speaker 0 states this view isn't shared by the rest of the world. Speaker 1 says he is glad Speaker 0 speaks for the rest of the world. Speaker 1 questions why he should listen to the United Nations, calling it a "clown show" that should be pushed into the Hudson River. He accuses the UN of creating child prostitution rackets in Africa and asks what it has done to solve anything of late. Speaker 0 asks what Speaker 1 thinks of the UN. Speaker 1 questions Speaker 0's claim to represent the world's opinion.

Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of being a corrupt politician. Speaker 1 responds by mentioning that 50 former national intelligence officials and the heads of the CIA have dismissed the accusations as false. Speaker 0 dismisses this as another Russia hoax. Speaker 1 tries to steer the conversation back to the issue of race.

Former UN ambassador John Bolton discusses the allegations of the United Nations Relief Agency (UNRWA) having ties to Hamas and potentially participating in attacks. Bolton suggests that the relationship between UNRWA and Hamas is extensive, given the large Palestinian presence within the agency. He raises questions about how many UNRWA employees were aware of and aided the attack, including the use of UNRWA vehicles and facilities. Bolton also highlights the need to investigate the depth of Hamas cooperation with UNRWA. The discussion emphasizes the shocking nature of UNRWA workers participating in attacks, knowing the consequences for civilians in Gaza. The credibility of UNRWA and the United Nations as a whole is called into question.

The video discusses claims of atrocities in Israel, including objects inserted into bodies and genital mutilation. The UN report and media sources question the credibility of these claims, citing unreliable forensic interpretations and lack of evidence. Even pro-Israel sources like NBC News and Haaretz are unable to confirm the allegations based on the images provided. Police and forensic pathologists found no evidence of sexual assault or genital mutilation on bodies examined. Overall, doubts are raised about the validity of the claims made. Translation: The video discusses allegations of atrocities in Israel, such as objects being inserted into bodies and genital mutilation. The UN report and media sources question the credibility of these claims due to unreliable forensic interpretations and lack of evidence. Even pro-Israel sources like NBC News and Haaretz are unable to confirm the allegations based on the images provided. Police and forensic pathologists found no evidence of sexual assault or genital mutilation on bodies examined. Overall, doubts are raised about the validity of the claims made.

Speaker 0 accuses someone of making unprovoked actions and manipulating information to make it seem that way. Speaker 1 reports that CNN cannot confirm the claim of babies being beheaded, but mentions the claim of Israeli children being kidnapped and kept in cages. They reveal that the original video was published before the Hamas attack. Speaker 0 claims that the manipulators will play the victim and use pictures from the oppressed to support their cause. They also mention that the truth will always be clear for those who are open-minded.

Speaker 0 asks how much USAID money went to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina to create weaponized coronaviruses. Speaker 1 rejects the implicit accusation and says they don't have the specific details of USAID funding at their fingertips. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 is stating for certain that no USAID money went to the Wuhan Institute. Speaker 1 says they are happy to take questions from those in the audience who treat every person respectfully, and calls on someone else. Speaker 0 asks what Speaker 1 is denying. Speaker 0 says it's a non-denial denial.

Speaker 1 states there is no genocide in Gaza and that Palestine is a name invented by the Roman Empire. Speaker 0 says this view is not shared by the rest of the world. Speaker 1 responds that they are glad Speaker 0 speaks for the rest of the world. Speaker 0 mentions the United Nations General Assembly. Speaker 1 says the United Nations sends people in blue helmets to rape little girls in Africa and that the United Nations could be pushed into the Hudson. Speaker 0 asks what Speaker 1 thinks of the UN. Speaker 1 questions Speaker 0's claim to represent the world's opinion.

Speaker 0 claims that Hamas is not a terrorist group, but a resistance that has been fighting against colonialism, occupation, and violence for 75 years. Speaker 1 questions if Canada is also a colonialist country. Speaker 0 insists that everything Hamas does is justified and denies allegations of beheaded babies, stating that it was fake news. Speaker 1 mentions the 1300 deaths, but Speaker 0 dismisses it as lacking evidence. Speaker 0 argues that Hamas, as a Muslim group, would not commit such acts as it goes against Islam. They also mention Israeli women who claim that Hamas fighters treated them respectfully and even asked for a banana to eat.

The speaker was asked about USAID funding for research in Wuhan and at the University of North Carolina. They denied the accusation and did not have specific details. The speaker avoided directly answering if USAID money was used in Wuhan. They preferred respectful questions and moved on without giving a clear denial.

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

It's important to address the claims about sexual violence in the context of the conflict. The UN special representative on sexual violence reported that Israeli hostages in Gaza experienced sexual violence, including rape and torture. This report indicates that such abuse is ongoing and that there were incidents of conflict-related sexual violence during the October 7 attacks, including multiple cases of rape. When denying these occurrences, it raises questions about the credibility of the UN's findings. Why would the United Nations fabricate such serious allegations?

The speaker questions the credibility of a report on sexual violence in Gaza, referencing a meeting with a Zaka volunteer. They express concerns about the report being used to perpetuate violence and emphasize the need for a thorough investigation. The speaker highlights the importance of verifying information and mentions the involvement of civil society organizations in pushing for accountability. They stress the need for a comprehensive investigation to uncover the truth.

Hillel Neuer of UN Watch testified before the Swiss Senate, advocating for defunding UNRWA. He presented a dossier, including the "Unholy Alliance" report, documenting meetings between UNRWA leaders and Hamas/Jihad members, and previewed an upcoming report exposing Hamas's control over UNRWA's education system. Neuer highlighted momentum, citing the US Congress vote to freeze funding until March 2025, the Swiss lower house vote to suspend funding, the Netherlands' decision to defund UNRWA over four years, and Sweden's cessation of funding. He emphasized the significance of Switzerland, Lazarini's home country, defunding UNRWA. Neuer stated that defunding is insufficient and called for sanctions against UNRWA and holding its leaders accountable in court for allegedly aiding and abetting war crimes by knowingly funding Hamas leaders as teachers and principals.

The speaker criticizes the UN and its organizations for relaying false information about the situation on the ground. They claim that the UN relies on Hamas for facts, despite Hamas being a genocidal terror organization that controls Gaza. The speaker calls for the myth of UN-supplied facts to be debunked, stating that many UNRWA workers and media contributors in Gaza are Hamas members. They also mention how photojournalists from Reuters and the New York Times documented Hamas's actions and crossed into Israel with the terrorists.

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

Speaker 0: It's important to note that this is your opinion. Israel's Hamas has reiterated their stance, claiming otherwise. Speaker 1: May I interrupt? We need to clarify that there is no evidence yet. It's crucial to understand that Hamas has said many things before, but now we have proof. How have we proven it? I hope you will show it too. We have recorded conversations between members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, which clearly demonstrate where exactly this rocket is going. So, it's not just Hamas and Israel. Each side denies the other's claims. Speaker 0: I understand your point, but we won't be able to resolve it here.

Speaker 0 claims that Hamas is not a terrorist group, but a resistance that has been fighting against colonialism, occupation, murder, rape, and the mistreatment of children and women for 75 years. Speaker 1 questions if Canada is also a colonialist country. Speaker 0 insists that everything Hamas does is justified, including recent events. Speaker 1 mentions children being murdered and babies being beheaded, but Speaker 0 dismisses it as fake news. Speaker 0 argues that Hamas, as a Muslim group, would never commit such acts as it goes against Islam. Speaker 0 also mentions Israeli women who claim that Hamas members treated them respectfully and even asked for a banana to eat.

The speaker downplays the severity of the actions committed by 12 UNRA staff members, who participated in a massacre resulting in the death of 1200 people. They argue that such incidents happen in every organization and emphasize the positive work UNRA does, like providing supplies to Hamas. The speaker dismisses the significance of UNRA schools distributing textbooks promoting anti-Semitism and violence against Israel. They challenge the audience to name a single organization without 12 individuals involved in similar atrocities. The speaker urges leniency towards UNRA and questions the potential consequences if they continue their operations unaffected.

Speaker 0 asks about the amount of money from USAID that went to Wuhan and their collaborator at the University of North Carolina to create weaponized coronaviruses. Speaker 1 rejects the accusation and admits to not having the specific details of USAID funding. Speaker 0 presses for a clear answer, but Speaker 1 deflects and requests respectful questions from the audience. Speaker 0 insists on a denial, calling Speaker 1's response a nondenial denial.

Speaker 0 accuses Hamas of lying and emphasizes the importance of other democratic states like Germany, Britain, and France recognizing this. Speaker 1 acknowledges that this is the opinion of Israel, but also mentions that Hamas has denied these claims. Speaker 0 interrupts to clarify that Hamas has indeed lied, and they believe it will continue to do so. They claim to have evidence to support their statement.

The discussion centers on alleged child sex abuse within the United Nations and how it is handled internally. The second speaker asserts that many UN employees, including those at the UN, treat child sex abuse as “a cost of doing business.” They state that French peacekeepers were abusing children in the Central African Republic, with children as young as eight years old being forced to perform sexual acts in exchange for food. This claim is described as despicable and the opposite of the UN’s mission. The second speaker further contends that, according to their account, anyone involved in cover-ups of child sexual abuse “without exception, has been promoted.” In contrast, those who report abuses or attempt to stop them are said to have been fired or resigned. They claim the UN has spent more than 3,000,000 US dollars on silencing them personally. A broader critique is offered of the UN’s stance on whistleblowing, summarized by the assertion that “the UN's position on whistleblowing, whether it's this, child's excuse, or anything, is destroy the whistleblower.” The first speaker appears to challenge whether such allegations are being spoken about publicly by someone within the organization who knows about ongoing abuse, implying fear of job loss as a deterrent to speaking out. The second speaker presses the point with a direct personal inquiry, noting that an assistant secretary general is “not speaking out about someone he knows who is raping multiple children because he's worried he's gonna lose his job,” and asking, “Yeah. What's his name?” Overall, the exchange attributes a systemic pattern of abuse and retaliation to silence whistleblowers within the UN, highlighting specific alleged incidents in Central African Republic involving French peacekeepers and a broader accusation that reporting abuse is penalized while cover-ups are rewarded.

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

The UN Rapporteur on Palestine, Francesca Albanese, is described as having said that America is controlled by the Jewish lobby. The speaker claims that on October 7 she defended Hamas by saying there is a context, and that she repeatedly echoes “the worst blood libels against Israel” on Twitter. The speaker states that Albanese is “the leading purveyor of the genocide libel,” and says their group is “fighting back” by exposing what they call hateful remarks. They claim Albanese has become the first UN rapporteur in history to have been condemned by France, Germany, Canada, the Netherlands, the UK, Argentina, Hungary, the United States, and other countries including Latvia and Estonia, and that “each condemnation matters.” They say they led a campaign that gathered 120,000 people, including attendees, who signed a petition asking Secretary Rubio to take action because the U.N. failed to act. They say Secretary Rubio announced that, for the first time in history, the United States would sanction a U.N. official on July 9. The speaker asserts that the U.S. sanctioned Albanese and adds that this results in multiple restrictions: she is banned entry from the United States; she cannot use a bank card; she cannot use a debit card; and she cannot receive a payment. They quote Albanese as describing the sanctions as “devastating,” and as saying, “very good, very good,” and that it sends a message of deterrence. The speaker then claims consequences beyond the sanctions. They say that Albanese’s husband, who works for the World Bank and is described as sharing in her incitement, was demoted from his position at the World Bank for incitement to hate. After Albanese was sanctioned, the speaker claims that the head of the Commission of Inquiry against Israel, Navi Pillay, resigned. Finally, the speaker says they heard Albanese has family in the United States and that she was afraid that if she were sanctioned she could not enter the U.S., concluding that she resigned in that context.

Speaker 0 defended the Palestinians and Speaker 1 clarified the situation. They disagreed and ended the conversation.