reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker claims that many Jews in present-day Israel are not descendants of the Judeans or the lost tribes of Israel, but rather descendants of the Khazars from Eastern Europe. They argue that these Jews cannot trace their ancestry to ancient Palestine and are not Semites. The speaker questions why the history of the Khazars and their kingdom is not taught in schools or included in history textbooks. They suggest doing some cross-checking and mention that even the Jewish encyclopedia acknowledges the existence of the Khazars.

Speaker 0: The Israelites is not Israel. And as Tony and I are both Catholic, and so when we talk about the Israelites that are talked about in the Bible, there is a clear distinction between this prophecy about the Israelites and the government of Israel and white Europeans settling into the holy land. Mhmm. And so when we say this, like, the Israelites, the Israelites in the bible are actually the Palestinian people who have been there for thousands of years, not the white European from Ukraine or Poland or America. The Israelites are the people who were indigenous to that land that lived there for thousands of years, and those are not the people who have Trump wrapped around his finger. It's this, like, settler colonial white Europeans that have settled into the land of the actual Israelites that have either blackmailed him or cut deals with him financially. I mean, we go back to greed. Right? Greed is always, like, a big factor decisions. So Trump, in all senses, is wrapped in intertwined with this government and the Zionist regime and the Rothschilds and the Vanderbilts and the 13 rich families that control the world, basically. Right.

The discussion opens with Speaker 0 noting that the first foreign visit by a New York City mayor is significant and asks where each candidate would go first. Speaker 1 (Cuomo) replies, “First visit, I would visit The Holy Land.” Speaker 2, addressing hostility and antisemitism in New York, adds, “Given the hostility and the antisemitism that has been shown in New York, I would go to Israel.” Speaker 0 then directs the question to Speaker 2 (Tilson). Tilson responds, “Yeah. I’d make my fourth trip to Israel followed by my fifth trip to Ukraine, two of our greatest allies fighting on the front lines of the global war on terror.” Speaker 0 moves to Speaker 3 (Mamdani), who says, “I would stay in New York City. My plans are to address New Yorkers across the five boroughs and focus on that.” Speaker 4 interjects with a follow-up to Mamdani: “Mister Mamdani, can I just jump in? Would you visit Israel… as mayor?” Mamdani answers that as mayor, “I'll be doing as the mayor, I'll be standing up for Jewish New Yorkers, I'll be meeting them wherever they are across the five boroughs, whether that's in their synagogues and temples or at their homes or at the subway platform because, ultimately, we need to focus on delivering on their concerns.” The conversation then covers a direct question: “And just yes or no, do you believe in a Jewish state of Israel?” Mamdani replies, “I believe Israel has the right to exist.” Speaker 4 counters, “Not Israel. State?” Mamdani responds, “Notice. As a state with equal rights.” Speaker 1 presses Mamdani further, noting, “He won't he won't say it has a right to exist. Does a Jewish state be very clear?” Speaker 2 adds, “Answer was no. He won't visit Israel.” Mamdani claims, “I I said that That's what he was trying to say. No. Unlike you, I answered unlike you, I answered the question directly. Alright.” The conversation then shifts to Speaker 5, who shares a personal rationale: “My my goal would be to take my first trip to Israel. My wife's life work in this area means a lot to our family, and it could coincide with my young son, Miles, bar mitzvah, if you'd like to have his bar mitzvah.” Speaker 2 interjects briefly, “Okay. But” before the excerpt ends.

The discussion centers on the way lawmakers reference religion in foreign policy and whether that approach is effective. Speaker 0 asks the audience how many think a respected lawmaker like Ted Cruz uses the Bible to justify aid to Israel, even if he doesn’t know the verse, and whether that is the best approach. Speaker 1 responds by referencing Ted Cruz’s Genesis twelve three, and notes that many find that off-putting when contrasted with the New Testament, specifically Paul’s writings about the new flesh not being the same as the people in the old covenant. Speaker 1 asks, “Yes. Romans nine?” and agrees with the sentiment. Speaker 0 then asks Speaker 1 if they are Catholic, to which Speaker 1 replies that they are converting Catholic from Judaism, revealing that they are ethnically Jewish. The exchange confirms Speaker 1’s Jewish ethnicity. Speaker 0 brings up concerns about APAC, asking if Speaker 1 has concerns about APAC. Speaker 1 confirms that they do. Speaker 0 notes that some people tell them that criticizing APAC equates to being anti-Semitic, asking whether this is true. Speaker 1 calls that notion ridiculous and says it’s great to have concern for one’s country. The conversation shifts to APAC’s influence. Speaker 0 presents a characterization (as a possible summary of Speaker 1’s view) that APAC represents a form of prioritization that cuts in line, away from the American people. Speaker 0 asks whether this is a fair summary. Speaker 1 answers affirmatively, “100%.” Finally, they articulate the core idea: the public votes and are citizens, but a separate group is described as receiving higher priority for whatever reasons. Speaker 1’s agreement underscores a shared concern that APAC’s influence creates a prioritization that bypasses the ordinary American electorate.

DNA tests are allegedly prohibited in Israel because they would reveal that virtually no Ashkenazi Jews are Semitic or have ancestral connection to Palestine. The speaker claims to have met Chinese, Vietnamese, and African Jews, none of whom are native to Palestine. The speaker states that some Ashkenazi Jews are entirely European in their DNA. The speaker recounts being assaulted by a BBC manager who had recently converted to Judaism. The speaker believes that converting to Judaism does not give someone the right to displace Palestinians.

The speaker presents a hypothetical scenario regarding DNA testing between two populations connected to a geopolitical region. The core claim is that, if one conducted a comprehensive DNA test across Palestinians as a group and compared the results to a comprehensive DNA test across Israelis as a group, the Palestinians would show more actual genetic ties to the landmass in question than Israelis would. The speaker further notes that the Israelis are mostly of Eastern European origin, implying that their genetic ties to the landmass would be comparatively weaker or less direct in this hypothetical comparison. In essence, the assertion is that Palestinians have greater genetic connections to the landmass than Israelis, with the caveat being the geographic and ancestral characterization of the Israeli population as predominantly Eastern European. The statement is framed as a bet or wager on the outcome of such DNA testing, emphasizing the perceived difference in genetic affinity to the land between the two populations. The speaker uses the contrast between Palestinians and Israelis and makes explicit the claim about the Israeli population’s ancestry, labeling it as mostly Eastern European, to contextualize the expected results of a land-based genetic link. The overall point hinges on the comparison of genetic ties to the same landmass, projecting that Palestinians possess a stronger genetic connection to that land, while the Israeli population, described as largely Eastern European, would not exhibit the same level of connection in the same test. This summarization captures the comparison, the populations involved, the landmass reference, and the stated ancestry descriptor for Israelis, as presented by the speaker. No additional arguments or external information are introduced beyond what the speaker asserted. The emphasis remains on the proposed outcome of a hypothetical, comprehensive genetic comparison and the stated ancestry characterization of Israelis.

The speaker asserts that every Israeli prime minister has a fake name and that many changed their original European Jewish surnames to sound more Jewish or Middle Eastern. The speaker claims various examples: - David Ben Gurion: original name Gruen; changed to sound more Jewish and Middle Eastern. - Benjamin Netanyahu: real name Milkovsky (also stated as Malikowski in places); the speaker urges checking to verify Milkovsky. - Moshe Sharet: original name Chertok. - Levi Eshkol: original name Shklonik; changed to Eshkol. - Yigal Allon: original name Peikovits. - Golda Meir: real name Mabovich (not Golda Meir). - Yitzhak Rabin: real name Rubitsov. - Yitzhak Shamir: original name Yezernitsky; noted as being on a British wanted poster in Palestine for terrorism. - Shimon Peres: original name Persky. - Ehud Barak: original name Brog; changed to Barak. - Ariel Sharon: original name Shinerman; changed to Sharon. - Yair Lapid: original name Lample; changed to Lapid. The speaker emphasizes that Israelis are European Jews who do not come from Palestine and argues they want others to believe they are indigenous to the land; thus, they changed names to obscure their Eastern European origins. The pattern highlighted is that these are Eastern European names, not Palestinian or Middle Eastern, implying a claim about origins and ethnicity. The discussion centers on name changes as a deliberate act to redefine identity, with multiple examples presented to illustrate the point.

Speaker 0 believes Christians are biblically commanded to support Israel, based on the idea that those who bless Israel will be blessed. Speaker 1 questions if this refers to the modern political entity of Israel, with its current borders and leadership, as opposed to the Jewish people. Speaker 0 affirms that the biblical reference to Israel does indeed refer to the modern nation-state, which he says is the same nation of Israel spoken about in Genesis. Speaker 1 expresses skepticism, suggesting that most people interpret the Genesis passage as referring to the Jewish people, not necessarily the political entity of modern Israel.

Someone challenged the existence of Palestine as a sovereign state, but that argument is flawed because many countries gained statehood recently. The Bible is often used to support the claim of Jewish people to the land, but it also mentions a preexisting Palestinian king in the book of Genesis. This suggests that a Palestinian state existed before the Jewish presence. Although it didn't cover the entire region, it included a significant portion of southwestern Israel. The real issue here is that some people don't want Palestinians to exist, as evidenced by articles suggesting they should be driven into the Sinai Desert.

Speaker 0 states their support for Israel stems from a biblical teaching: those who bless Israel will be blessed. Speaker 1 questions if this refers to the modern government of Israel. Speaker 0 clarifies the Bible refers to the nation of Israel. Speaker 1 asks for a definition of Israel, questioning if it means the current political entity run by Benjamin Netanyahu, and Speaker 0 confirms that it does. Speaker 1 suggests the Genesis verse refers to the Jewish people, but Speaker 0 disagrees. Speaker 1 points out Speaker 0 cannot cite the exact scripture. Speaker 0 says they are explaining their personal motivation, not saying all Christians must support the modern state of Israel. Speaker 1 summarizes Speaker 0's position as being based on a Bible verse they cannot locate.

- The discussion opens with an exploration of how religion is used in land claims, focusing on Judaism, Zionism, and the concept of the Promised Land. The rabbi states that Judaism is a religion with nothing to do with nationality or race, and that “Judaism is a pure religion.” He cites Maimonides and Sanhedrin to define who is considered a Jew, emphasizing that belief is what matters, not ethnicity or birth alone. - The rabbi explains the difference between Judaism and Zionism. Zionism, he says, is a movement about a hundred and thirty years old founded by Teddy Herzl, described as a secular Jew who “didn’t believe in god” or in the Torah. Zionism is portrayed as an effort to transform Judaism from a religion into a national movement, demanding an Israeli passport, army service, Hebrew, and land-based nationhood. He argues that Zionism “transform[s] from a holy religion, from believing in god, from reconnecting to god into a empty, national movement.” - On the Promised Land, the rabbi asserts that the promise in the Torah is conditional, contingent on the people maintaining a high level of life. He references the prophets (Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah) and states that God warned of exile if they did not adhere to the covenant. He emphasizes that the exile was a punishment from God, and that returning to the land requires the coming of the Messiah. He cites the Torah as repeating the conditional nature of the promise and notes that the end of Jeremiah describes exile as the outcome when conditions were not met. - The rabbi discusses the Messiah as a future, peaceful redemption for all humanity, whereas Zionism, in his view, lacks belief in God and the exile, instead adopting a human-centered national project. He mentions the three oaths from the Talmud (Ksumbat) in Numbers 14, 41, describing God’s oaths not to rebel against the nations, not to go up to Israel en masse, and not to prevent the spread of the faith; these oaths are used to argue against aggressive settlement or mass return. - When asked how to respond to Zionist counterarguments about “the chosen people” and the right to a Jewish state, the rabbi distinguishes between religious and secular Jewry. He notes that among religious Jews (Hasidic and Haredi), attitudes toward Zionism and Israel are diverse: outside Israel, he estimates 95% of people look non-Zionist and 65% are strongly anti-Zionist, with prominent anti-Zionist Hasidic communities (e.g., in Stamford Hill) that advocate dismantling the state of Israel in a peaceful way. He contrasts this with segments in Israel, where settlers are strong Zionists, though there are also anti-Zionist Jews, including those who boycott the army. - The interviewer asks about the practical and geopolitical implications of dismantling the state of Israel, and whether a peaceful dismantling is feasible. The rabbi says he is not a politician and reiterates Torah authority, citing that “a rebellion against god cannot be succeed” and re-emphasizing the belief that if the state is in rebellion to God, it will come to an end. He offers a religious perspective that dismantling could be peaceful and envisions living in a Palestinian-governed framework or various arrangements, but insists the core principle is adherence to divine command rather than human political prescriptions. - The rabbi provides anecdotal and contemporary context to illustrate his point: he asserts that Muslims and Jews have lived peacefully in many places, citing Iran as an example where Jews have their own MP and a Jewish hospital, and recounts an instance in which Ismail Haniyeh embraced Jewish rabbis at a conference to illustrate that opposition is directed at occupiers rather than Jews themselves. He argues that within the Arab world there can be acceptance of Jews when “the occupiers” are not present, and he contrasts this with what he views as Western or Zionist framing. - The conversation ends with an agreement to continue the discussion, with the rabbi reiterating his stance that the peaceful dismantlement of the state of Israel is prayed for in the Torah, while the interviewer signals an openness to further dialogue on these complex religious and political issues.

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.

Speaker 0 raises a question about why the biggest podcasts, which are critical of Israel and discuss concepts like greater Israel and Jewish supremacy, exist and suggests Jews control all media. He asks why they aren’t allowing themselves to be more represented in media control. Speaker 1 responds by attributing the phenomenon to demographics: there are fewer Jews in the world than people in Beijing, about 15,000,000 Jews versus 1,200,000,000 Muslims. He argues that audience size should be measured by number of people, so targeting Jews would yield a smaller audience, and that this is the main issue. He emphasizes that Jews are a small group. Speaker 0 references a guest who called him evil for protecting an “evil group of people that were controlling everything,” and asserts that this perception is misguided because claims of control are unfounded. He notes that Paramount has just been acquired, and he mentions TikTok and CBS, suggesting a perception that one large conglomerate owns much of media; he uses this to counter the idea that pro-Israel and Zionist groups are buying media to suppress anti-Zionist messaging. He says, “they’re doing it because they didn’t control it already,” and points out that different entities are being criticized, implying the existence of various special interests. Speaker 1 counters by saying the issue is that there are few Jews, implying limited influence due to numbers. He reiterates the small size of the Jewish population relative to others, reinforcing that the audience potential is limited. Speaker 0 adds that conspiracies are widespread, mentioning Islamic special interest groups that fund and lobby, as well as Israel engaging in similar activities. He asserts that people should be allowed to criticize any government they want, and concludes that the conspiracy insanity is what drives him insane. Overall, the conversation centers on: the distribution of media power, the impact of demographic numbers on audience reach, claims about Jewish influence and media ownership, the existence of special interests across different groups, and a critique of conspiracy theories while affirming the right to criticize governments.

Speaker 0 expresses support for Israel and the right of Israel to defend itself, but says they have to do this because they simply have no option if they are to survive as a country, and frankly, in many ways, as a race in that part of the world. Speaker 1 asks whether immigration represents a major threat to Britain from a demographic perspective, noting that in the last twenty years the white British population has declined from 87% to 74%, and asks if that is a concern. Speaker 0回答: No. No. Speaker 1 reiterates the claim of rapid demographic change, stating that the fastest and most rapid decline of the white British population ever experienced in British history has occurred in a tiny short period of time, and that majority cities that were once 90% white British are now majority ethnic minorities, citing London, Leicester, and Birmingham, and asks why this isn’t a concern of Speaker 0. Speaker 0 responds: But they're not unrecognizable as being English because of skin color. They're unrecognizable because of culture. He adds that he genuinely thinks the British are the most open minded, most accepting people.

Speaker 0 states that settlers do not plan attacks in advance and do not wake up thinking about violence because their life is good. Speaker 1 claims Speaker 0 wants Palestinians to leave, but Speaker 0 denies this. Speaker 0 says what is on their mind is how to bring more people to settle the land and develop it. Speaker 0 claims to not think in terms of Beta because they think, "I'm a Jew, I'm a settler, I'm a human being." Speaker 1 suggests Speaker 0 is thinking tribally, prioritizing their own people to the exclusion of others, which Speaker 1 calls sociopathic. Speaker 0 disagrees, stating this is normal.

The speaker argues that American Jews are wrestling with a category they inherited from our European ancestors about 250 years ago. As Jews moved into modern nation-states and pursued secular jobs and secular education, they reimagined Judaism to fit in. Judaism was transformed into something like a Protestant-style religion: a framework that worked well for a long period, enabling Jews to participate in broader society. The speaker emphasizes that Jews are not merely a religion, nor are we a race or ethnicity. Instead, Jews are a nation, civilization, tribe, peoplehood, and above all, a family. Therefore, a young person in America who thinks Judaism is simply a Protestant religion risks viewing the 7,000,000 Jews in Israel as merely co-religionists. If that is the lens, the natural question becomes: what do you owe to them? It would be like telling a mainline, very progressive Protestant in Berkeley, California that they must care about a Pentecostal in Brazil. In that framing, it doesn’t make sense, because it’s a category error. The speaker clarifies that the people in Israel are not merely co-religionists; they are siblings. The danger lies in thinking of Israel's Jewish population primarily through the lens of shared religious practice. When that happens, there is a risk of sliding into anti-Zionism, because the fundamental, personal connection to Israel—as siblings within a broader Jewish family—gets diminished or lost if Israel is reduced to a subset of co-religionists who share a particular religious outlook or social-justice framework. Key contrasts highlighted include the historical adaptation that treated Judaism as a Protestant-style religion to fit into secular, modern-state life, versus the present understanding that Jewish identity encompasses nationhood, civilization, and family ties. The speaker suggests that recognizing Israel as part of a family, not just a co-religionist community, is essential to maintaining connections that are not solely defined by theological agreement or social-justice alignment but by a broader shared Jewish peoplehood.

Some people argue that those who have lived on this land for generations may feel a strong sense of ownership. However, the speaker dismisses this perspective, stating that according to the Torah, the land belongs to them and they don't care about anything else, including laws or human rights. They believe that the Torah encompasses true human rights. The speaker concludes by mentioning their plan to build a significant structure called the Bismikdash.

The speaker claims that many Jews in the reconstituted state of Israel today come from Eastern Europe and are not descendants of the Judeans or the lost tribes of Israel, but rather descendants of the Kazakhs. They describe Kazakhs as a nation most people do not know of. The speaker states, “He writes, the so called self styled Jews in Eastern Europe in modern history cannot legitimately point to a single ancient ancestor who ever set even a foot on the soil of Palestine in the era of bible history.” They also assert, “Research also revealed that the so called or self styled Jews in Eastern Europe were never Semites, are not Semites now nor can they ever be regarded as Semites at any future time by any stretch of the imagination.”

Speaker 0 asks for comments on Israel, and someone responds by saying that Israel should leave Palestine. Another person points out that the people in Palestine are occupied and it is their land. The question is raised about where they should go, and someone suggests they go back to Poland and Germany. Another person adds that they should go back to America and other places as well.

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.

Speaker 0 confronts Speaker 1 for living in a house that doesn't belong to him. Speaker 1 argues that if he leaves, someone else will take it. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of stealing the house, but Speaker 1 claims he has permission from the owner to live there. Speaker 1 explains that he was chosen to live there to maintain a Jewish presence in the neighborhood. Speaker 0 questions his right to be there, and Speaker 1 clarifies that it's about keeping Jews in, not keeping Palestinians out. Speaker 1 acknowledges that the house is lost to Palestinians and emphasizes that they won't be returning. The fate of the second part of the house is uncertain.

Speaker 0 argues that chanting “from the river to the sea” is in favor of a second holocaust. He suggests some students are ignorant and do not understand what they’re talking about, noting they talk about “end the occupation of Palestine” and needing a history lesson. He states that there has never been a Palestinian Arab state. Before World War I, the land experienced centuries under the Ottoman Empire and was not a Palestinian Arab state. Then came the British mandate for Palestine, followed by a UN partition plan that proposed a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews accepted the state and founded Israel, while the Arabs rejected the state and went to war to try to eradicate Israel, and they lost. He says they went to war again and lost in 1967 and 1973 and throughout the Intifadas. Consequently, he asserts that the land historically has “no stronger connection” than any group of people except the Jewish people, and that connection goes back thousands of years. He concludes with a call to “Read your bible.”

The Jewish people have been attached to the land of Israel for 3,500 years. The loss of their land occurred during the Arab conquest in the 7th century when Arabs took over the land and made the Jews a minority. Despite being dispossessed and scattered, the Jews never gave up their dream of returning to their ancestral homeland. In the 19th century, they started coming back and building farms and factories. The conflict with the Palestinians arises from their refusal to accept a Jewish state, claiming it as their own. The speaker argues that while Palestinians can live alongside Jews, they cannot demand the dissolution of the Jewish state.

Speaker 0 describes the Gaza war as a response to the horrors of October 7, noting he has been to Gaza since the war began and that entering is restricted (the IDF is the only way in). He describes Gaza as a flattened place and calls the situation a disaster for the future of Israel and for the Palestinian people, with 70,000 deaths mentioned. He asserts the catastrophe is a disaster for families of the dead and for children. Speaker 1 counters that tens of thousands of civilians murdered represent a disaster for the future of Israel, but emphasizes that the real crime in Gaza is killing people who did nothing wrong. He critiques the idea that people are labeled anti-Semitic, arguing that naming accusations can silence legitimate concerns, and insists the real problem is the harm in Gaza. Speaker 0 turns to the question of Israel’s right to exist and Zionism, asking whether the respondent believes in the narrow definition of Zionism as the state of Israel having the right to continue existing. Speaker 1 pushes for definitions, distinguishing between “right to exist” and “should continue to go on as a nation state.” He asks for clarification on what the right to exist means, noting the term’s use as a political construct and questioning what “right” means in this context. Speaker 0 reframes, asking whether Israel should continue to exist, and whether the respondent seeks Israel’s destruction. Speaker 1 responds that he does not seek Israel’s destruction and does not want anyone to be killed, particularly innocents, and emphasizes a stance against killing innocents as a basis of Western civilization; he states he does not identify as a Zionist and does not understand the term, urging a definition. He reiterates he does not want Israel destroyed or to use nuclear weapons. Speaker 0 mentions the broader historical frame of Zionism, asking again about the right to exist in narrow terms. Speaker 1 again questions the usefulness of the term and emphasizes a preference for universal standards, arguing he believes in human rights that derive from the creation of people by God, rather than ethnic or group-specific rights. He asserts he supports universal human rights for all people, regardless of ethnicity or religion. In sum, the dialogue moves from the Gaza war’s human cost and the resulting disaster for civilians and future prospects, to a debate over Zionism and Israel’s right to exist, and culminates in a commitment to universal human rights and opposition to collective punishment or destruction of innocents.

A speaker identifying themselves as Jewish with critical thinking skills questions where information comes from and asks to see sources. They reference opening the Torah and reading the story of how Jewish people ended up in Israel, then challenge the audience about Abraham’s origins and knowledge of his story. They state that Abraham comes from what is now present-day Iraq, and they question what the story with Abraham, the Jewish people, and God is. They assert that Jewish people are not indigenous to Israel and recount a version of the biblical narrative: God speaks to Abraham and offers a present of “free land” for the Jewish people, telling Abraham to take them to a land filled with milk and honey, and that Abraham leads the people there. They ask what happens when they get to Israel and note that there were already people there. They claim that God told Abraham to slaughter and expel those people from the land, identifying those people as the indigenous inhabitants. The speaker condemns what they describe as others on the app presenting this information as fact, expressing concern that Jewish people themselves may not know their own history or the history of their religion, culture, and land. They juxtapose this with broader historical tragedies, suggesting that if readers have wondered what they would have done during the Holocaust, civil rights movement, slavery, and Canada’s genocide of indigenous people, they should look at what people are doing in the present. They argue that worldwide tragedies and genocide continue because people are afraid to speak out due to social repercussions. Throughout, the speaker emphasizes the following core claims: - Abraham originated from a region corresponding to present-day Iraq, not Israel. - The narrative involves God presenting “free land” to the Jewish people and Abraham leading them to this land. - Upon arrival, the land already had indigenous inhabitants. - The divine instruction attributed to God to Abraham was to slaughter and expel those indigenous people. - Many individuals on the app propagate incorrect historical claims as fact, and some Jewish people may lack awareness of their own historical and religious background. - The speaker connects current fear of speaking out to historical and ongoing acts of mass violence and genocide, urging people to speak out rather than stay silent. The speaker ends by linking contemporary social fear to historical injustices, calling for greater courage to speak out.