reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I recognized Israel right after it was formed to provide a homeland for Jews after seeing the horrors of the Holocaust. The Israeli government was set up in Palestine, some Arabs were relocated but compensated. Israel has thrived and made advancements in the region. There was a conflict with Egypt, and if not for US interference, Nasser would have been defeated.

American Jews support Israel, and Jewish prime ministers have historically enlisted their support to pressure American presidents, which is understandable. American Jews prioritize Israel's survival due to the Holocaust and believe America's security is directly related to Israel's. They believe that supporting Israel does not mean putting America second. However, an American president must prioritize what is best for America, whether dealing with Israelis, Irish, or other groups. Usually, what benefits America also benefits Israel, and vice versa. But sometimes, a president must avoid giving Israel a blank check. One example is the decision to seek good relations with Egypt and other neighbors of Israel. Some Israeli friends preferred a special relationship with Israel only. However, it is better for the U.S. to be a friend to Israel's neighbors, rather than allowing a vacuum to be filled by a country such as the Soviet Union.

Recognizing Israel's formation, I wanted a homeland for Jews after seeing Nazi atrocities. We established the Israeli government in Palestine, relocating some Arabs who were compensated. Israel has thrived, achieving feats unseen in the region. Despite a conflict with Egypt, interference prevented escalation.

The president believes the US has leverage over Israel. However, Israel is a sovereign country that makes its own decisions. The US presents proposals for peace and security, but ultimately Israel decides independently.

Let me explain something about what is called the Jewish lobby in this country. Their belief is that being for Israel first, that that does not mean you're putting America second. An American president, however, has to approach it in a different way in my opinion. He's got always to think first of what is best for America. An American president must make a decision that does not in effect give the Israelis a blank check. And one example of that is a decision that I made. I decided early on in our administration that we were going to seek good relations with Egypt and other others of Israel's neighbors. Many of my Israeli friends didn't like that because they wanted a special relationship with Israel and Israel only.

"The fact is that American Jews support Israel, and I understood that." "every Jewish prime minister that I have known, has enlisted American Jews to bring as much pressure as possible in the political process on American presidents." "That's understandable." "I don't object to it." "But on occasions, for example, an American president must make a decision that does not in effect give the Israelis a blank check." "I decided early on in our administration that we were going to seek good relations with Egypt and other others of Israel's neighbors." "Israel's interests are better served to have The United States a friend of Israel's neighbors and potential enemies and to leave a vacuum which the Soviet Union would fill." "I still believe that and I think that should be American policy today."

Support for Israel in the Middle East should not require an apology. It is seen as a valuable investment, worth $3 billion, and crucial for protecting American interests in the region. In fact, the United States would even create Israel if it didn't exist already.

American Jews support Israel, and Jewish prime ministers have historically enlisted their support to pressure American presidents, which is understandable. Jews prioritize Israel's survival due to the Holocaust and believe that supporting Israel equates to supporting America. However, an American president must prioritize America's interests first. Presidents must avoid giving Israel a blank check. The speaker decided to seek good relations with Egypt and other neighbors of Israel, despite some Israeli friends preferring a special relationship with Israel only. The speaker believed that it better served Israel's interests for the United States to be a friend to Israel's neighbors, preventing a vacuum that the Soviet Union could fill, which the speaker believes should still be American policy today.

Both sides' willingness to make a lasting deal is questioned. One side may not want a deal, while the other side might. Showing too much of our cards can hinder negotiations. A skilled dealmaker could potentially make a deal if Israel is willing. The speaker had a positive meeting with Abbas, who seemed open to making a deal. However, it is believed that Netanyahu never wanted to make a deal. The speaker's perception of the Palestinians and Israelis changed after these meetings.

'We had several other, people in the country, even among the Jews, the Zionists particularly, who were against anything that is to be done if they couldn't have the whole of Palestine and everything handed to them on a silver plate so they wouldn't have to do anything.' This indicates internal opposition—particularly among Zionists—to any action unless the entire Palestine goal could be obtained. 'It couldn't be done.' 'We had to take it in small doses.' He concludes, 'You can't move five or 6,000,000 people out of a country and fill it up with five or 6,000,000 more and expect both sets of them to be pleased.'

In 1947, the United Nations decided to create Israel in Palestine, dividing it into 8 zones. Palestinians would get 4 pieces, Israelis 3, and an international zone. Palestinians would have 48% of their state, even though Israelis legally owned only 5% of Palestine. This decision was driven by guilt over the holocaust.

There were people, including Zionists, who opposed any action unless they were given all of Palestine without effort. However, it was not feasible to relocate millions of people and expect both groups to be satisfied. Recognizing Israel was a difficult decision that required compromise. The Jews wanted to remove all Arabs to the Tigris and Euphrates River, while the Arabs wanted to expel all Jews to the Red Sea. My goal was to find a homeland for the Jews while being fair to all parties involved.

Speaker 0 argues that the American government is trapped by the Israelis, using Jeffrey Epstein as a tool to constrain and manipulate U.S. leaders. He claims Epstein was used to trap multiple presidents and influence policy, stating, “Bill Clinton, Ehud Barak met Arafat in the nineties, and there was no deal. The reason was Epstein. They were being blackmailed by Epstein.” He adds that Ehud Barak, then Israeli prime minister, was also “a friend of Epstein” but was blackmailed by the Israeli right wing, and that this pressure stopped a potential two-state solution with Arafat. He asserts Epstein’s leverage extended beyond sex to financial concerns, questioning, “Where was the money coming from?” and contends that the Gaza issue is the focal point of much of the obstruction. He cites Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal reporting a birthday card Trump sent to Epstein as evidence of ties, and claims that Israelis have compromised the American government through Epstein and related past events. He also states that “I don’t think Trump wants to continue this war or the genocide” and that Israelis are inhibiting him. Speaker 1 asks what Dershowitz’s denial suggests, prompting Speaker 0 to elaborate with broader conspiracy implications, suggesting that Israeli influence has shaped U.S. policy and history, including why peace deals or normalization efforts may have stalled. Speaker 1 questions why those in power would use Epstein instead of other drastic measures like assassination, referencing theories about John F. Kennedy’s assassination and noting the possibility of broader intelligence involvement. He proposes that the GCC countries could leverage financial power to supplant traditional APAC lobbying in influencing U.S. policy and asks whether Trump could mobilize Arab world and BRICS power to end what is described as genocide. Speaker 0 answers that Trump could end the genocide “right now” if he stops fearing the Israelis, urging him to disregard accusations about his ethics, “Let them say whatever they say. He should stop the genocide. Let them do whatever they wanna do. Morality should take over.” He compares the Israeli pressure to historical leverage, asking Trump to act in the interest of the United States and the Middle East. Speaker 1 references Robert Maxwell as an example of Israeli intimidation, noting the dangers of challenging them. Speaker 0 closes by reiterating hope that Trump will prioritize U.S. and Middle East interests and “do the right thing.”

We faced opposition from various groups, including Zionists, who wanted all of Palestine without effort. We had to proceed gradually due to conflicting interests. Despite objections, we took action and progress is being made. It will take time, but eventually, we hope to satisfy everyone.

In the Middle East, it's time to stop apologizing for supporting Israel. There's no need for apologies because supporting Israel is a valuable investment. The United States sees Israel as essential for protecting its interests in the region. In fact, the United States would even create Israel if it didn't exist.

We faced opposition from some Zionists who wanted all of Palestine without effort. We had to proceed gradually due to conflicting interests. Moving millions of people and satisfying both sides is challenging. Despite objections, we took action and progress is being made. It will take time, but eventually, everyone will be content.

Let me explain something about what is called the Jewish lobby in this country. Their belief is that being for Israel first, that that does not mean you're putting America second. An American president, however, has to approach it in a different way, in my opinion. He's got always to think first of what is best for America. An American president must make a decision, that does not in effect give the Israelis a blank check. And one example of that is a decision that I made. I decided early on in our administration that we were going to seek good relations with Egypt and other others of Israel's neighbors. Many of my Israeli friends didn't like that because they wanted a special relationship with Israel and Israel only.

I recognized Israel right after it was formed to provide a homeland for Jews after seeing the horrors of the Holocaust. The Israeli government was established in Palestine, and some Arabs were compensated for their land. Israel has been successful, even facing conflicts with Egypt. Nasser would have been defeated if not for US interference.

There were people, including some Jews, who opposed any action that didn't give them all of Palestine. However, it was not feasible to relocate millions of people and expect everyone to be satisfied. Despite objections, we took gradual steps and things are progressing. Recognizing Israel as a state was not an easy decision, as it required compromising with the Arabs and dividing Palestine. The Jews wanted the Arabs gone, and the Arabs wanted the Jews gone. I aimed to find a homeland for the Jews while being fair to the Arabs. However, in such situations, the people you help the most often become the most angry with you.

American Jews support Israel, and every Jewish prime minister has enlisted them to pressure American presidents, which is understandable. Jews prioritize Israel's survival due to the Holocaust and believe America's security is directly related to Israel's. They think supporting Israel first does not mean putting America second. However, an American president must prioritize what is best for America, whether it concerns Israelis, the Irish, or others. Usually, what benefits America also benefits Israel, and vice versa. But sometimes, a president must avoid giving Israel a blank check. An example is the decision to seek good relations with Egypt and other neighbors of Israel. Some Israeli friends preferred a special relationship with Israel only. However, it is better for Israel if the United States is a friend to Israel's neighbors and potential enemies, preventing a vacuum that the Soviet Union could fill. This should be American policy today.

Among the Jews, there was opposition from the Zionists to any partial solution regarding Palestine. Moving millions of people in and out of the country caused objections. Despite the challenges, actions were taken and progress is being made. It will take time to satisfy everyone.

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.

I had to compromise to recognize Israel, dividing Palestine to find a homeland for Jews while being fair to Arabs. Despite opposition from both sides, I, as US president, followed through with what I believed was right with Congress support. Many Jewish people were against me because they wanted all of Palestine. They didn't want to drive all Arabs into the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers.

American Jews support Israel, and every Israeli prime minister has sought their help to influence American presidents, which I understand. However, a president must prioritize America's best interests, whether dealing with Israelis, Irish, or any other group. While what's good for America is often good for Israel, a president can't give Israel a blank check. For instance, my administration sought good relations with Egypt and other neighbors of Israel, even though some Israeli friends preferred a special relationship with Israel alone. I believed that it was in Israel's best interests for the United States to be friends with Israel's neighbors and potential enemies, to avoid a vacuum that the Soviet Union would fill. I still believe that should be American policy today.