reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 insults Speaker 1 for being Palestinian, expressing indifference to children killed in Gaza. Speaker 1 questions Speaker 0's support for killing Palestinian kids, leading to a heated argument where Speaker 0 calls Speaker 1 a Nazi. Speaker 1 denies being a Nazi, prompting Speaker 0 to tell them to calm down.

Speaker 0 states, "I love Israel." Speaker 1 responds, "Do I look stupid? I'm not gonna say that." Speaker 1 questions why people are so "crazy" and says, "The Israeli people are so crazy." Speaker 0 asks, "You eat a dog?" and "You kill people? You babies? You keep f***ing woman. You born the hospital?" Speaker 0 asks, "Israel or Palestine?" Speaker 1 states, "Since Israel babies, people, children, and women, I choose Palestine. Of course." Speaker 1 concludes by saying, "You guys look crazy. Chill."

Speaker 0 states they 100% support Hamas for not accepting the ceasefire, because they do not want a situation where they can be bombarded again in the future. Speaker 2 says that innocent people are being killed and no one is taking their side, and that they are ashamed to be Canadian and to be in Canada. Speaker 1 says that Canada affords people the privilege of peaceful protest without fear of attack, where they can wear and say what they want, and suggests that if Speaker 2 is ashamed to be Canadian, they should leave. Speaker 1 calls this the side of the peace movement that other networks won't show.

Speaker 0 expresses their disregard for signs and tears them down. Speaker 1 questions their actions, mentioning innocent hostages taken by murderers and rapists. Speaker 0 counters by bringing up Palestinian babies, accusing Hamas and Islamic Jihad of murdering them. Speaker 1 clarifies that they do care about the Palestinian babies and accuses Speaker 0 of supporting a terrorist organization. Speaker 0 responds with derogatory remarks about Palestinians and suggests they should all be exterminated, including their children. Speaker 1 sarcastically thanks Speaker 0 for approving their fight and ends the conversation.

Speaker 1, a 22-year-old Palestinian named Esther Karam, proudly supports Hamas and criticizes those she perceives as white supremacists. She questions the use of terms like "terrorist" and asks if people are aware of the suffering Palestinians have endured for 75 years. Speaker 0 mentions that several governments recognize Hamas as terrorists and discusses recent events in Gaza. Speaker 1 accuses white reporters of bias and questions the motives behind their reporting. The conversation becomes heated, with Speaker 1 bringing up race and religion. Speaker 0 expresses confusion and Speaker 1 ends by expressing her support for Palestine and making a hateful remark.

Speaker 0 accuses Israelis of wanting Palestinians dead, claiming they say Palestinians aren't human and it's okay to burn them all, with the goal to destroy them and take over Palestine. Speaker 0 asserts they have seen evidence of this and demands Speaker 1 stop lying and deceiving. Speaker 0 states they have been to these places and will never be a paid killer or murder anyone to steal their land. Speaker 0 claims Speaker 1 is not a man for fighting children and random men with sticks and stones, not a military. Speaker 0 alleges that when Israel fights a military, they run and call the United States to solve their problem, calling them cowards. Speaker 0 says Speaker 1 is trying to act objective because their babies aren't dying and calls them a fool and a monster for not displaying a human reaction to murdering children.

Speaker 0 confronts Speaker 1 about a controversial statement made regarding Israelis and Arabs. Speaker 1 admits that the tweet was dumb and clarifies that it specifically refers to the Hamas leadership. Speaker 0 disagrees, pointing out that Speaker 1 also made derogatory comments about Palestinians. Speaker 1 denies this and emphasizes that it was only directed at those who oppose Israel. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 mentioning Speaker 1's statement about the Palestinian Arab population being rotten.

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.

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 questions Speaker 1's focus on defending Israel, suggesting it represents foreign influence in US politics. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 0 of singling out Israel and implying Jewish control over foreign policy, labeling it an antisemitic trope. Speaker 0 denies antisemitism, stating the concern is about a foreign government's influence, not Jews or Judaism. Speaker 1 challenges Speaker 0 to provide another reason for focusing on Israel. Speaker 0 cites the potential for war with Iran and Speaker 1's stated goal of defending Israel upon entering Congress. Speaker 0 asserts that a lawmaker's job isn't to defend any foreign government's interests, regardless of ancestry, and condemns the antisemitism accusation.

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

The speakers engage in a heated argument about racism and Palestine. Speaker 0 insists that the protestors are racist and should not be shouting in England. Speaker 1 argues that they have the right to protest and that Speaker 0 cannot dictate their actions. The conversation escalates with Speaker 0 accusing Palestine of rape and violence. Speaker 1 tries to calm the situation, stating that shouting causes conflict. The argument continues with Speaker 0 asserting their right to film and expressing their desire to upload the video on YouTube. The conversation ends with Speaker 1 encouraging Speaker 0 to continue filming.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1's focus on defending Israel, suggesting it represents foreign influence over US politics. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 0 of obsessing over Israel and implying Jewish control of foreign policy, which Speaker 0 denies. Speaker 0 refutes being antisemitic, stating the concern is with a foreign government's influence, not Jewish people. Speaker 0 points out Speaker 1's stated goal to defend Israel upon entering Congress. Speaker 0 asserts that a lawmaker's job isn't to defend foreign governments, and accuses Speaker 1 of being "sleazy" for implying antisemitism. Speaker 1 questions why Speaker 0 is only asking about Israel. Speaker 0 reiterates that the issue concerns a foreign government, not Jewish people.

Speaker 0 argues that the Palestinian people are oppressed and suffer under the occupation. They acknowledge Hamas is an armed group, but they describe Hamas as a reaction to signals of injustice and oppression by Israel. They assert that you cannot talk about peace without justice for Palestine and express a desire to know how the other person addresses that claim. Speaker 1 responds by reframing the situation as a political conflict, stating that while there is ideology involved, the core is colonization. They describe a situation where “a fence” surrounds the people, drones fly above, and “everything is taken over there.” They insist that the people in question are not there voluntarily and describe the people breaking out of their camp as something that provokes anger, calling that a “very peculiar viewpoint.” They further claim that Hamas is largely supported and founded by Mossad, arguing that it was very handy to have Hamas to respond to reactions in the area. Speaker 0 asks for evidence to support that claim. Speaker 1 confirms that evidence exists and says they will post it on Twitter after the conversation. They add that the evidence can also be found from the Israeli government or authorities, describing it as a very specific source.

Speaker 0 asks about Palestinians in hospitals and babies on life support in Gaza whose power has been cut off by Israelis. Speaker 1 dismisses the question, saying they are fighting Nazis and don't target civilians. Speaker 0 tries to have a conversation, but Speaker 1 interrupts and raises their voice. Speaker 0 asserts their role as the host and asks Speaker 1 to address the situation, but Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 0 of shame. The conversation becomes heated and Speaker 1 refuses to engage further.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about condemning the killing of civilians. Speaker 1 defends Israel's actions, claiming they have the right to defend themselves. Speaker 0 argues that terrorists also claim the same right. Speaker 1 disagrees, stating that Hamas and Bin Laden were not defending themselves. Speaker 0 questions how an occupier can defend itself in the first place. Speaker 1 tries to respond but is interrupted. Speaker 0 continues to argue that an occupier cannot claim self-defense. Speaker 1 acknowledges Israel's mistakes but defends their actions against terror attacks. Speaker 0 questions if killing civilians is justified, and Speaker 1 argues that Hamas can be targeted if they hide among the public. Speaker 0 dismisses this argument as a fallacy and questions the necessity of bombing densely populated areas.

Speaker 0 expresses shock at the idea of cruelty toward a target, asking, “why be so cruel to him? Get rid of all of him, men, women, and children,” and notes that some accuse them of genocide, calling it “a show” and accusing them of being those who believe in genocide, Has a show. Speaker 1 pushes for decisive action, insisting, “Minister Netanyahu, finish them. Finish them.” He adds a broader demand to support Israel “whatever they want, whatever they need, whenever they need it,” stating, “We need to be there for them.” Speaker 2 interjects to correct, clarifying, “Okay. Hold on. I wanna I wanna correct you. I don't just condone the actions of the Israeli Defense Force and the Israeli government. I celebrate and loud them.” He emphasizes strong support for Israeli actions as part of his stance. Speaker 1 continues, asserting, “You guys are worshiping one Jew. That's a mistake. You should be worshiping every single one of us.” Speaker 3 agrees or elaborates, “That's right. Enemies because they are,” and Speaker 1 repeats, “The children are your enemies?” to which Speaker 3 answers, “They are they are our enemy.” Speaker 2 reflects on his upbringing, saying, “Growing up in Sunday school, I was taught from the bible. Those who bless Israel will be blessed, and those who curse Israel will be cursed.” He frames his perspective around wanting to be on “the blessing side of things,” specifically among “those who bless the government of Israel,” though he adds, “Doesn't say the government of it. It says the nation of Israel.” He then states his loyalty, declaring, “I'll tell you that I think it will surprise a lot of people. You know, I am very, very loyal to the Jewish people and to Israel.”

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 expresses distress over videos of suffering children, describing the situation as a massacre and, for some, a genocide. They feel complicit due to tax dollars funding military actions and express a sense of powerlessness. They also suggest that American interests are sometimes secondary to those of Israel. Speaker 1 disagrees with the genocide characterization, stating that Israel is not purposely trying to murder every Palestinian, but rather trying to destroy a terrorist organization after being "hit hard." Speaker 1 acknowledges the suffering of innocent Palestinian children and emphasizes the need to eliminate the conflict and provide humanitarian assistance. They note the president is pro-Israel.

Speaker 0 expresses disdain towards Hamas supporters. Speaker 1 accuses them of celebrating the Israeli massacre and questions their morals. Speaker 2 asks for evidence of decapitated babies. Speaker 1 describes gruesome acts committed by Hamas. Speaker 2 mentions supporting Palestine and freedom of identity. Speaker 1 dismisses the possibility of Palestine being freed and criticizes those who support Hamas. They claim that Hamas manipulates political correctness and diversity to legitimize terror. Speaker 1 urges support for Israel and expresses hatred towards Christians and Jews. The conversation ends with a threat of violence.

Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of going to jail, but Speaker 1 denies any illegal activities. Speaker 0 questions why Speaker 1 is speaking freely in their country, to which Speaker 1 responds that it is legal to preach about Yeshua in Israel. Speaker 0 abruptly ends the conversation, but Speaker 1 expresses respect. Speaker 0 claims that the Torah instructs to kill Christians, and Speaker 1 acknowledges the discrimination against Christians. Speaker 0 asserts that Christians are idol worshipers.

Speaker 0 alleges that Mark Levin has repeatedly called for murdering civilians in Gaza, including children, because they are Amalek or “stained by blood guilt.” They claim this constitutes a blood guilt argument and leads to collective punishment and genocide, describing it as the Israeli government’s attitude and stating that “we’re paying for that.” Speaker 1 responds that they should defend themselves and that if there is collateral damage, that is unfortunate, emphasizing the need for Israel to defend itself. Speaker 0 contends that twenty-five years ago in this country, people didn’t talk that way; blood guilt would imply being guilty by birth, which they say leads to genocide and is unchristian and unamerican. They claim that if someone said such a thing on television, they would be pulled off the air, and argue that saying “kill kids because you don’t like their parents” reflects the Israeli government’s attitude, a well-documented attitude, and that “we’re paying for that.”

The speakers engage in a heated argument about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of being a low-grade thug and a racist. Speaker 1 defends himself, stating that he cares about the death of Palestinian children but believes Hamas is responsible. Speaker 0 criticizes Speaker 1's lack of knowledge about the conflict and dismisses the idea of a two-state solution. Speaker 1 counters by mentioning his concern for other global issues, including the Uyghur Muslims in China. The conversation becomes increasingly confrontational, with Speaker 1 accusing Speaker 0 of using anti-Semitism as a diversion tactic.

Speaker 0 expresses the belief that as long as Israel exists and is supported by America, there will always be Muslims who pose a threat and seek to harm us. Speaker 1 disagrees, stating that they do not support Israel and do not believe it is worth American lives or dollars. Speaker 0 questions this stance, arguing that Israel is not comparable to other countries like Saudi Arabia. Speaker 1 clarifies that their main concern is the survival of the United States and expresses concern about the influence of APAC and the lobby on American support for Israeli actions.

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