TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 references an email exchange between Jeffrey Leeds and former Secretary of State Colin Powell in which Powell allegedly acknowledges that Israel “has 200 nuclear weapons” and that “the nuclear non proliferation treaty has not been signed by Israel,” and asks whether under US law the United States should cut off support to Israel because it is a nuclear power that has not signed the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. Speaker 1 declines to engage: “Shouldn't you ask Colin Powell that? I I'm not gonna speak to this particular traffic, and I'm certainly not discuss doesn't have nuclear weapons? I'm certainly not going to discuss matters of intelligence from the from the podium, and I'm not I have no I have no comment.” Speaker 0 reiterates: “the email says the boys in Tehran know Israel has 200. All we targeted on Tehran, and we have thousands. I mean, that that seems to indicate that that there's a knowledge of an Israeli nuclear program, which would make USA to Israel illegal.” Speaker 1 responds: “I think I've answered your question.” Speaker 0 asks again whether the understanding is correct: “am I do I have the correct understanding of US law that that we are we are not allowed to support a nuclear power that has not signed the nuclear nonproliferation treaty?” Speaker 1 says: “Look, we obviously support the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. I'm not a I'm not a legal expert on all the tenets of it, and I'm certainly not going to speak about the the details that you've revealed here in this email traffic. That would be inappropriate for me to discuss one way or the other. I'm not gonna There do” Speaker 0 notes that sanctions have been imposed on North Korea and Iran for nuclear proliferation, and asks why Israel is not facing any consequences in light of Powell’s alleged email. Speaker 1 reframes: “That's a very colorful way of getting back to the same question you just asked me, but I'm going to refer you back to the transcript when you see it this afternoon to what I said before to your question. So you're familiar with this email. Right? I'm not. Oh. I have not seen it. I'm not I can't speak to the email. Frankly, even if I'd seen it, Zurich, I wouldn't engage in that kind of a discussion from the podium.”

Speaker 0: Were I a Jew, I would be a Zionist. And my father pointed out to me, I did not need to be a Jew to be a Zionist, for I am. Israel is essential to security of Jews worldwide. Speaker 1: That this is not theoretical. This is not just about things that happen on Twitter. Antisemitism kills. Hate kills. Speaker 2: I come before you not only as The United States Secretary of State, but also as a Jew. My grandfather, Maurice Blinken, fled pogroms in Russia. My stepfather, Samuel Pizar, survived concentration camps, Auschwitz, Dachau, Maidanic. Speaker 3: We have a common agenda to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and preventing Iran's aggression, maintaining the security and prosperity of this region, and seeking to expand the circle of peace. Speaker 4: On October 7, Hamas terrorists murdered nearly 1,200 people, including over 40 Americans, and kidnapped hundreds of civilians. They perpetrated the deadliest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. Speaker 5: Holocaust. Holocaust. My grandfather fled Nazi Germany. Fled Nazi Germany. If we wanna create peace in the Middle East, resolve the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, we don't need boycotts. We need business. We don't need divestment. We need investment. We don't need sanctions. We need startups. We need startups. They met with several Israeli companies looking to expand into The United States. Speaker 1: Actual, literal, no shit, Jews will not replace us anti Semites as very fine people. Speaker 6: I support Israel's ability to defend itself. Speaker 7: It's about time we stop those of us who support as most of us do, Israel and this body for apologizing for our support for Israel. There's no apology to be made. None. It is the best $3,000,000,000 investment we make. $3,000,000,000 investment we make. Speaker 8: two of us were brought together by Apex Education Foundation for a mission to Israel. We hear the call of our Jewish brothers and sisters. Israel was this place I had always felt an, I don't know, unexplainable pull. Speaker 5: And the Jewish people have been the recipients of boycotts for hundreds, if not thousands of years. Speaker 6: So I just had a frank and constructive meeting with prime minister Netanyahu. I told him that I will always ensure that Israel is able to defend itself, including from Iran and Iran backed militias such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Speaker 3: Israelis do not need to be lectured about the importance of peace by foreign leaders. Speaker 9: Why does Israel need our help? We need to get out of their way. Speaker 6: I've said it many times, but it bears repeating. Israel has a right to defend itself. Speaker 2: The message that I bring to Israel is this. You may be strong enough on your own to defend yourself, but as long as America exists, you will never ever have to. We will always be there by your side. Speaker 1: He is a friend of the Jewish people by aligning not even with Israel, but with a certain kind of politics within Israel. And I just think that the American Jewish community are a lot smarter than that. Speaker 7: And even suggested breaking from the long standing US policies on settlements. Jerusalem. Jerusalem. Speaker 9: I was one of the few in congress that said it's none of our business, and Israel should take care of themselves. Speaker 8: Perhaps he does not know that I am the child of a holocaust survivor. Perhaps he does not know that my mother lost almost all her family at the hands of the Nazis. At the hands of the Nazis. Speaker 9: Israel has 200, 300 nuclear missiles, they can take care of themselves. Why should we commit? We don't even have a treaty with Israel. We don't even have a treaty with Israel. Speaker 7: Were there not an Israel, The United States Of America would have to invent an Israel to protect her interest in the region. Speaker 9: Why why do we have this automatic commitment that we're gonna send our kids and send our money endlessly, to to Israel?

The speakers discuss the idea of using nuclear weapons. Speaker 2 believes it would solve problems, but Speaker 0 points out the negative consequences of radiation. Speaker 2 suggests that those who support nuking should go live with them. Speaker 1 emphasizes the desire for peace. Speaker 2 acknowledges a difference between the leadership of Hamas and innocent civilians. Speaker 0 mentions resources in the video description. Speaker 2 warns that using nuclear weapons would make the world hate Israel. Speaker 0 questions the need to deal with them when Israel is already stronger.

If Israel faces annihilation, they might use their nukes. Iran and Hezbollah need to understand they cannot wipe out the Israeli people. If Israel is about to be totally destroyed, they need to be thinking about all their options. The US military being stretched is not Israel's fault. The US should fund its military and not treat it like a secondary agency. This country has a lot of problems, but that's not on the head of the Israeli people who are trying to survive. When the US looks weak, violence and threats increase. Israel's gotta do what it's gotta do.

Mario: Do you think The US should attack Iran? Joel: He could do a large but limited strike designed to punish the Iranian regime, but not explicitly try to topple it. Clint (Glenn): Now it's in the national interest of Iran to acquire nuclear weapons as a deterrent. You think that Iran the authority enemy. Of Not America being responsible for killing thousands of Iranians. It's very strange that we don't recognize the security competition here. You're unbelievable. No legitimate security concerns for Iran. None of your rules. Mario: Gentlemen. Astonishing. Joel: Does Iran need to be an enemy of The US? Clint: I see that’s very dishonest. This idea that The United States and Israel are worried about the Iranian civilians. I think this is ludicrous. If anything, they're doing everything they can to fuel the violence. If we stop threatening them, perhaps we can get something in return. They stop the threat. No. Mario: Never tried we've never gone down this path at all. Joel: You’re just completely ignoring tens of billions of Iranian dollars that go funneling into terrorist organizations that kill Americans, kill our Arab allies, kill our Israeli allies. It doesn't seem to bother you. Mario: Joel, I’m gonna start with you. A pretty broad question. Do you think The US should attack Iran, and do you think they will? Joel: The president has set his own terms. He has three choices: do nothing and frame that as diplomacy; do a large but limited strike designed to punish the regime but not topple it; or go all in toward regime change. He hasn’t made regime change his explicit objective yet. I think he’ll pick option two, a large but limited strike, because negotiations aren’t designed to lead somewhere. The Iranians are not serious, in his view. Mario: Do you think Trump should go with option two, or seek regime change? Joel: He should go with number two. Regime change is something I would love to see, but it’s too big an objective with air power. If the regime is toppled by force, the risks are immense. Damaging the regime—ballistic missiles, some nuclear components—could be enough to protect citizens and allies, even if it doesn’t topple the regime. If a coup follows, that’s a risk. Mario: Glenn, you argued against regime change but acknowledged concerns about the regime’s brutality. Please respond to Joel and the broader points. Glenn: I don’t think Trump should attack. It’s very likely he will, and the objective will probably be a limited bloody nose attack that is going bombed for two or three days or, like last time, twelve, and then pull away, with an implicit understanding that if Iran retaliates, it could be a big war. There is no diplomatic solution because the Iranians reject multi-issue deals; they want nuclear issues to be separate. The Iran regime is existentially threatened, so they’ll respond. The aim should be to recognize key security concerns and pursue a broader security understanding, not just use force. Mario: Joel, respond to Glenn’s point about whether Iran must be considered an enemy and about potential diplomacy. Joel: Does Iran need to be an enemy of The US? No. But this regime is an enemy. The people of Iran do not have to be enemies. The supreme leader believes the United States and Israel are enemies, and for forty-seven years they say, death to America, death to Israel. The Iranian regime has decided they’re the enemy. The Iranian people largely despise the regime. Mario: If Iran agrees to stop the nuclear program, should The US accept such a deal? Is that enough? Joel: The nuclear program is almost 100% destroyed; you wouldn’t negotiate solely on that. If diplomacy exists, it would be to address threats beyond the nuclear issue—ballistic missiles, regional alliances, human rights, etc. The Iranians were willing to accept transparency around their nuclear program in JCPOA-era diplomacy, but the Americans pulled out. If a nuclear deal is possible, it would require mutual concessions; insisting on broader concessions risks collapse. Glenn: The problem is that Iran has legitimate security concerns too. The strategy after the Cold War linking security to global hegemony is problematic. There should be recognition of Iran’s legitimate security needs, not a complete defanging. We should explore a grand bargain—recognize a Palestinian state, get out of Syria, and pursue a path with Iran that reduces the threat without destroying Iran. Mario: There’s a debate about whether the Gulf states see Israel as a bigger threat than Iran now. Joel, what’s your take? Joel: Two countries—Qatar and Turkey—see Israel as an enemy. Turkey’s Erdogan has threatened Jerusalem; Qatar hosts anti-American and anti-Israel propaganda via Al Jazeera and has hosted Hamas leaders. Israel has the right to defend itself and has pursued peace deals with several Arab states, but the region remains dangerous. Israel should avoid destabilizing moves and pursue peace where possible, while recognizing the security challenges it faces. Glenn: Israel’s internal politics and policy flaws exist, but law in Israel provides equal rights to Arab citizens; policy can be improved, but not all claims of apartheid reflect law. Arabs have political rights, though issues with funding and policy remain. The West Bank is a flashpoint; Gaza is controlled by Hamas, complicating Palestinian governance. There’s a broader discussion about whether regime change in Iran is desirable given potential fragmentation and regional instability. Mario: Final question: where is Iran by year’s end? Glenn: If Trump attacks, Iran will perceive an existential threat and may strike back hard, possibly shutting the Strait of Hormuz. Russia and China may intervene to prevent complete destruction of Iran. Joel: I hope Glenn’s scenario doesn’t come true. Iran might pursue nuclear weapons as a deterrent. If the regime is weakened, the region’s stability could be jeopardized. The options remain: negotiate, strike, or regime-change—prefer a large but limited strike to deter further advancement without taking ownership of an unknown future. Mario: Thank you both. This was a vigorous, wide-ranging exchange. End of time.

During World War II, the Soviet Union was a military ally whose anti-Nazi propaganda was accepted and later integrated into historical accounts. One speaker states their belief that 6,000,000 Jews were killed in the war by Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. They then ask another speaker, the president of Iran and a scholar, if he believes that 6,000,000 Jews were killed by the Nazis, or if he thinks that is not true. The other speaker says he doesn't think 6,000,000 Jews were gassed, and cautions that this statement is against the law in Germany, and could result in imprisonment.

Speaker 0 asks what group the others are with and expresses belief in the Holocaust. They question why it is illegal to question it in 18 countries. When asked if they think it should be illegal, they answer yes. The speaker then asks why the others are there and tells them to leave. They mention subscribing to someone's belief and express admiration.

Speaker 0: And so, I mean, it sounds to me like that that it's leaving Iran with this choice of either rolling over, literally given everything we want, the, you know, the the nuclear enrichment, the the missiles, the proxies, etcetera, And that would buy you a little time, but then leave you utterly powerless. And the next day Speaker 1: That's right. Speaker 0: Either Israel or anybody else can come in, you would literally be helpless. And and, I mean, so we're correct me if I'm wrong, but we're offering Iran the option of either lay down and die by death later or stand firm and maybe die shortly now, but at least this way, you're gonna have some missiles to shoot back. I mean, do you see it differently? Speaker 1: No. I think you're exactly right. And, basically, we're we're inviting them to to become Qaddafi. You remember Qaddafi basically gave us a nuclear program. They basically said, fine. You know, I saw what you did in Iraq. I don't wanna end up up like that. I'll meet your terms, and we'll come to an agreement. We'll all be out. And we said, great. Now that you're defenseless, let's destroy you. Stick a bayonet up your rear rear end and shoot you in the head. Now if you're if you're the Iranian leadership, do you wanna end up like that? Look. I've always said the Iranians basically have a choice. They could be North Korea or they can be Libya. Which would you rather be? Speaker 0: That's not a choice for anybody to have to make. Speaker 1: Yeah. But that's that's the position we're putting them in. And frankly, I'm a little surprised they haven't gone for a nuclear breakout up till now. Because if they if they're looking for real security, say, okay. Fine. None no more of this nonsense. We don't wanna be Libya. We're North Korea now. Back off. Yeah. That that would make that would make sense from their point of view, wouldn't it?

The speaker is asked if they support Hamas killing 700 Israelis, including children, and kidnapping children. They respond by saying that the question is framed to make them look bad. They clarify that they do not support the United States, but they believe that the Israeli government is the real terrorist. The speaker is then asked a yes or no question about supporting the 700, but their response is not provided in the transcript.

Speaker 0 questions the rationale for the war, noting that “the intelligence did not suggest that an attack was imminent from Iran,” and asking, “What is left? Why are we at war with Iran?” He also remarks that “the nuclear program isn’t the reason” and that he never expected to hear Ted Cruz talking about nukes. Speaker 1 suggests the simplest explanation given, which has been backtracked, is that “Israel made us do it, that Bibi decided on this timeline, Netanyahu decided he wanted to attack, and he convinced Trump to join him by scaring Trump into believing that US assets in the region would be at risk, and so Trump was better off just joining Netanyahu.” He adds that this may not be the full explanation, but it’s a plausible one. He notes that “the nuclear program is not part of their targeting campaign,” and that “harder line leadership is taking hold,” with the Strait of Hormuz “still being shut down even as we get their navy.” He asks what remains as the explanation, suggesting it might be that Israel forced the United States’ hand and questions, “How weak does that make The United States look? How weak are we if our allies can force us into wars of choice that are bad for US national security interests?”

The speaker states their love for Jews and Israel has nothing to do with the question of whether people are killing or murdering a hundred children a day. Another person calls the speaker a terrorist.

Speaker 0 believes that if Israel faces annihilation, it may use its nuclear arsenal, which they never admit to having. Speaker 0 states that Iran and Hezbollah need to understand that they cannot wipe out the Israeli people. Speaker 0 denies encouraging the use of nuclear weapons but suggests that Israel needs to consider all options if faced with total destruction. Speaker 0 believes that the US military being stretched is not Israel's fault and that the US should fund its military better. Speaker 1 expresses concern about the potential involvement of the United States in the conflict and the possibility of a wider war, given the situation in Ukraine and China. Speaker 0 dismisses these concerns, stating that the focus should be on Israel's survival.

In 2002, before the Iraq invasion, Netanyahu testified to US Congress, stating Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons and hiding facilities underground. This was allegedly false and led to war. Netanyahu also stated he wanted regime change in Iran and questioned how to achieve it. Speaker 0 asks: How can we trust someone who goaded the US into war in Iraq based on falsehoods? Given recent events, why are we confident Netanyahu won't do the same with Iran, given his 20-year call for regime change? Speaker 1 says the President and Secretary have close working relationships with Netanyahu. The US commitment to Israel's security transcends any government. The US condemns Iran's attacks. Speaker 0 notes Netanyahu heads the Israeli government and there's a difference between condemning actions and the US getting into a war with Iran. Speaker 1 says the US is not interested in an all-out conflict with Iran, but is committed to Israel's security.

The speaker questions the number of nuclear weapons Iran and Israel possess. They admit to having no knowledge of Israel's nuclear weapons despite being in the government. The speaker denies discussing Israel's nuclear program and dismisses the importance of the issue. They mention that experts estimate Israel's nuclear weapons to be between 84 and 100. The speaker acknowledges the hypocrisy of Israel having a secret nuclear program while criticizing others in the region.

Speaker 0 asks what group they are with and expresses belief in the Holocaust. They question why it is illegal to question the Holocaust in 18 countries. When asked if they think it should be illegal to question the Holocaust, they answer affirmatively. The speaker mentions being in a position of power and tells two people to leave. They also mention subscribing to someone's belief and express admiration.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss a sequence of war-related scenarios, making provocative comparisons and extreme claims about Israel, Hamas, and broader conflicts. Speaker 0 asserts that if Mexico occupied their land and then decided to cut off electricity and control inputs, it would be akin to Israel’s actions against Palestinians; he imagines a scenario where an occupying force could slaughter people for allegedly throwing rocks. Speaker 1 counters by noting Israel has nuclear weapons and that the world’s military power backs Israel. Speaker 0 asserts that Israel has nuclear weapons and that they do not use them, while Speaker 1 suggests Hamas would use a nuclear weapon in seconds if they had one, stating three seconds as the answer because it’s in Hamas’s charter. Speaker 0 asks how anyone could know that, and Speaker 1 cites the charter as justification. Speaker 0 argues that Hamas would be martyrs if they used a nuclear weapon against Israel, describing Hamas as having a death-cult view and noting that they strap suicide vests sometimes on children. He says people cannot see the moral difference between Hamas and Israel. Speaker 1 pushes back, saying they are not talking about extermination and notes that Basilel Smotrich and Ben Gavir have talked about exterminating the entire population of Gaza, while Speaker 0 claims the West Bank is another example and states that despite the West Bank having nothing to do with October 7, it is being annexed and that terror is being rained on innocent Palestinians, driving them from their homes. Speaker 0 acknowledges that what Hamas did on October 7 was a “fucking atrocity,” killing innocent people. He says he is willing to admit that atrocity, but he emphasizes his belief that the atrocities against civilians in Gaza are also significant. Speaker 1 concedes that the IDF and all armies commit war crimes in war and that “all wars are going to have atrocity.” Speaker 0 asks for acknowledgment of a double tap on a hospital; Speaker 1 describes the hospital incident as an old terrorist trick and confirms that such acts occur in war, but he emphasizes that all wars involve atrocities. The exchange references first responders and a vague memory of the event, with Speaker 0 asserting that first responders’ deaths and hospital strikes are part of the ongoing discussion, while Speaker 1 frames them within the broader context of war crimes by all sides. Overall, the dialogue juxtaposes occupation, nuclear deterrence, and moral atrocity claims on both sides, with explicit references to statements by Israeli political figures, Hamas, and the general conduct of war by all parties.

- The discussion references the Samson option described by Sy Hirsch, noting that Israel supposedly has the option to retaliate against a perceived enemy even if it destroys Israel itself. The question posed is what a war on Iran would look like and how Israel would respond if Iran retaliated with hypersonic missiles. - Speaker 1 asserts that if Israelis were to use nuclear weapons against the Iranians, it would be “the end of Israel the way we know it today.” - Speaker 0 asks for clarification: “So they wouldn't use them?” - Speaker 1 replies: “No. According to the Sampson option, they would use them nevertheless.” He adds that they would “use it nevertheless” and “wouldn't think about the future. They would just use it,” describing the decision as coming from “a desperate group of people” in the Israeli cabinet and government that “want to stay in power and alive.”

Attacking a nation like Iran would quickly teach them to acquire nuclear weapons to prevent future attacks. Israel, North Korea, France, the United States, and Russia all obtained nuclear weapons for this reason. The speaker references the United States killing 250,000,000 people in two days in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, stating that it was not a high moral moment for America. The speaker suggests that attacking Iran could push them to develop nuclear weapons.

The speaker was asked if they believed students protesting were motivated by anti-Semitism or horror at the Gaza slaughter. The speaker dismissed the idea of students being driven by horror and refused to continue the conversation if it was being recorded.

In this exchange, Speaker 0 raises the issue of the USS Liberty attack in 1967, arguing that if truth matters, the Israeli government must be held accountable because the American flag was flying on that ship. Speaker 0 presses why, in a discussion of modern Israeli–American relations, Speaker 1 would deem the attack “irrelevant” to current ties. Speaker 1 responds that when assessing today’s relations, citing the 1967 attack as a basis for judgment is irrelevant—comparable to using evidence from World War II or 1776 to define present-day relations with Britain or Germany. He emphasizes that while the attack was horrible and tragic for those involved, and that Israel paid reparations, the actual naval record indicates the incident was a mistaken and tragic event. He notes that those who reference the USS Liberty often do so to suggest Israel deliberately harmed America, and asks if that is Speaker 0’s broader point. Speaker 0 reiterates that truth requires accountability from the Israeli government, given the American flag on the ship. Speaker 1 points to the naval investigations, stating that multiple investigations exist and that the Israeli military at the time was flying Mirage planes and the USS Liberty was operating off-grid. He explains that the Israeli forces mistook the ship for an Egyptian vessel and believed it was shelling Al-Arish, which was not true. He describes the sequence: the American flag was knocked down in the initial attack, the engagement lasted about ninety minutes, and once it became clear the vessel was American, the attack was halted and a ship was dispatched to assist the Liberty. He also notes there have been other unfortunate friendly-fire incidents in war, such as during the Gulf War when US forces killed British troops. Speaker 0 asks about the broader agenda behind raising the incident, suggesting that it is not limited to that specific event. Speaker 1 acknowledges the question but questions the motive and implies that it is not an appropriate basis for evaluating current U.S.–Israel relations. Speaker 0 asserts that there are ongoing problems in the relationship, but again emphasizes the six-decade-old incident as relevant to the discussion. Speaker 1 maintains that, in the same way that many histories exist, there are many countries and contexts, and reiterates that the question is not answered satisfactorily. The exchange ends with Speaker 1 indicating this will be the last question.

Speaker 0 opens with a provocative claim: “Fucked up the world is. That's a form of insanity.” The remark sets a mood of frustration and chaos. Speaker 1 then shares a personal moment: after coming home, they wrote a poem about Robbie which they intend to give him. They describe a reaction where someone took away Robbie’s property and Robbie began to blame it on the Jews, adding antisemitic rhetoric as a result. This accusation is presented as a reaction to a loss of property, with antisemitism framed as a consequence. Speaker 2 counters by specifying: “Not someone. The government. US government.” They elaborate that “the government and the Jews are one and the same,” asserting an equivalence between the government and Jewish people. Speaker 1 questions this claim, acknowledging it as “True true” and “Absolutely true. That’s never been—,” but the sentence trails as Speaker 2 presses the point: “Ask the Palestinians. The good Jews. Right? Why aren't the good Jews talking against the bad Jews? The so called good Jews out there.” Speaker 1 concedes that “There are. Very good people.” and “Wonderful people.” Yet Speaker 2 pushes back: “Why they talking” and then demands: “Why aren't the good Jews screaming against the bad Jews?” Speaker 1 suggests the reason is disagreement with the premise that there are “bad Jews,” implying that those who disagree are not such good Jews. Speaker 3 interjects with a stark comparison: “I equate the Jew and the devil together. To me, they're practically interchangeable. And I think the Catholic church did also. I think the entire concept of the devil is based on the Jews.” They reference the New Testament story where the devil shows Jesus all the kingdoms of the world and offers them if Jesus bows down and worships, implying this is symbolic of control and obedience for worldly wealth. Speaker 3 continues: “This is basically saying you can have all the money in the world. Do what you want. If you just do what I tell you to.” They interpret this as symbolic of the Jew. They claim: “This is symbolic of the Jew,” and even assert that “the devil is based on the Jew” and that “old pictures of the devil” resemble a Jew. Across the exchange, the conversation cycles between attributing political and financial power to Jewish groups, questioning the morality of “good Jews” versus “bad Jews,” and then offering a provocative theological claim linking the devil to Jews as a source of cunning or worldly power.

Why are countries like Iran, which hasn't invaded anyone for about four hundred years and doesn't threaten us, being threatened? Why does Israel have impunity? Why do journalists write down what governments tell them instead of questioning them? The mistakes that led to the invasion of Iraq in 2002/2003 are being repeated. These are questions that demand to be answered by journalists and the public.

Speaker 0 asks about President Kennedy’s efforts to prevent nuclear war, specifically his attempt to stop David Ben Gurion, then prime minister of Israel, from developing a nuclear weapon at the Demona site, noting that Kennedy demanded inspections of the Demona site and that Ben Gurion resigned as prime minister as a result of the controversy. What happened there? Speaker 1 responds that Israel was avoiding oversight, while Kennedy thought proliferation of nuclear weapons was incredibly dangerous and was concerned about preventing other countries from acquiring them. This concern contributed to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), whose goal was to prevent spread, among other aims. With regard to Israel, Kennedy believed that if Israel was an ally and the United States preached nonproliferation to the world, the U.S. needed to act consistently in its approach to Israeli nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, Israel proceeded with its program; the first functional Israeli nuclear weapon is thought to have been developed in 1966, which was before the NPT was negotiated, signed in 1968, and entered into force in 1970. Speaker 0 asks how many nuclear-armed states have signed the treaty. Speaker 1 answers that the treaty recognizes five nuclear-weapon states: the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China. These are the five that had declared arsenals up to that point. Israel had begun its program, and at this point is thought to have about 90 nuclear warheads. The five recognized states were all members of the United Nations with veto power in the Security Council. China and France did not join the treaty until 1992. Speaker 0 adds: So the other nations would be India, Pakistan, North Korea. Speaker 1 confirms: There are four others. So nine nuclear-armed states in total, five recognized by the United Nations, and all five are members of the UN Security Council with veto power. Then the four outside the treaty include Israel, which has a unique policy of ambiguity about an undeclared nuclear arsenal. It is thought to be about 90 nuclear warheads. Speaker 0 asks for confirmation. Speaker 1 confirms: Yes, absolutely. There is no doubt about whether or not they have them.

Speaker 0 asserts that Donald Trump decided to bomb Iran because Israelis said, for the first time, that if Trump did not bomb Iran to take out deep bunkers, Israel would use nuclear weapons; they had never threatened that before, and bombing Iran might save them from the start of World War III by preventing Israeli nuclear use. Speaker 1 asks for clarification, restating that Israelis told the U.S. president to use military power to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities, or Israel, acting on its own, would use nuclear weapons. They note the problem with that statement, since Israel has never admitted having them. Speaker 0 concurs, and Speaker 1 points out the contradiction: they are saying Israel just admitted to having nuclear weapons, yet the U.S. does not have them in the IAEA treaty. Speaker 0 adds that, if Israeli nuclear whistleblowers are to be believed, Israel has had nuclear weapons, and began working on them in the 1950s.

Speaker 0 asks what group they are with and then expresses belief in the Holocaust. They question why it is illegal to question the Holocaust in 18 countries. When asked if they think it should be illegal to question the Holocaust, they answer yes. The speaker mentions being in 3 seats and wanting power. They tell someone to leave and make a crude comment about subscribing to someone's beliefs.