reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel speakers present their arguments regarding the conflict in Gaza. The pro-Israel speaker criticizes Palestine for relying on Israel's infrastructure while wanting to wipe it off the map. They also mention Hamas using EU-funded plumbing tubes for rockets. The pro-Palestinian speaker blames Israel and the US for the violence, accusing them of genocide. The pro-Israel speaker highlights a terrorist attack on Israel and mentions the aid given to Palestine by the US. The pro-Palestinian speaker claims thousands of Palestinians are killed daily, but this is disputed. The conversation ends abruptly.

Speaker 0 argues that Israel, through its lobby, has manifested so much power over the United States Congress that the country is embroiled in wars they believe they should not be in. He states that whenever Israel is mentioned, someone claims you’re an anti-Semite, and he contends that policies in the Middle East have been one-sided and subjective, leading to many enemies and the importing of terrorists as a consequence. He asserts: “Israel through their lobby has manifested total power of the congress of the United,” and expresses a concern that taxpayers and the citizens of the United States should control their government, not a foreign entity. Speaker 1 challenges these assertions, saying: “You did. That’s not what you said. You said they’re controlling our foreign policy. They’re controlling our domestic policy.” He presses back, stating: “That quote, they are influencing and the sole control of influencing of our domestic policy is an absurdity. It sounds like you are a kook.” He explicitly disputes the idea that Israel controls the Congress and domestic policy. Speaker 0 clarifies, “I believe they control the senate and the house foreign affairs committee.” Speaker 1 repeats that claim as insane, prompting Speaker 0 to insist: “I’m not suggesting it. I served in congress for seven…,” implying a longer service and experience to support his concerns, though the sentence is cut off. The exchange centers on claims of disproportionate Israeli influence in U.S. federal policy, the objectivity of Middle East policy, and the contention that foreign lobbies, particularly related to Israel, have undue power over congressional decision-making, contrasted with direct rebuttals labeling such claims as irrational or insane.

Israel is accused of trying to erase Gaza's population, not just defeat Hamas. The speaker criticizes the lack of condemnation for Israeli war crimes by interviewers, highlighting a perceived double standard. The interviewer defends Israel's actions as responses to terrorism, while the speaker argues that killing civilians for a political cause constitutes terrorism, regardless of the perpetrator. The discussion revolves around the need for consistent moral principles in evaluating violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

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 are discussing the permissibility of collateral damage in war and whether civilians can be considered collateral damage. They mention examples of targeting refugee camps, hospitals, and mosques, with one speaker claiming that Israel targeted a hospital. The other speaker challenges this claim and asks for evidence. They also question the credibility of the evidence presented by Israel. The conversation becomes heated as they debate the validity of the evidence.

Israel is accused of torturing Palestinian detainees, leaving them unrecognizable with broken bones, burns, bruises, and scars. In contrast, Israeli settlers captured by Palestinians return unharmed and smiling, highlighting stark differences. This challenges Israeli claims.

Ted Cruz and Tucker Carlson had a heated exchange where Cruz questioned Carlson's "obsession with Israel," implying anti-Semitism. This occurred after Cruz stated he goes to Congress to "advance and serve the interest of Israel." The speaker highlights the US's extensive financial and military support for Israel, arguing it impacts foreign policy, civil liberties, and free speech. They claim criticism of Israel is often met with accusations of anti-Semitism, a tactic they compare to conservatives being labeled bigots for questioning liberal views. Carlson denied being anti-Semitic and accused Cruz of deflecting from valid questions about US foreign policy and loyalty to foreign governments. The speaker criticizes Cruz's "cowardice" for implying bigotry through innuendo rather than direct accusation. They state that Carlson was questioning the propriety of going to war for Israel, and Cruz insinuated that Carlson was an anti-Semite obsessed with Jews.

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.

Dershowitz denies being involved in a Mossad blackmail operation with Jeffrey Epstein. He states that Epstein visited him in Israel but had no connections there. Dershowitz questions the ethics of the show for springing unexpected questions on him, claiming he was not notified beforehand. The host insists that they did inform the people who booked Dershowitz for the show. Dershowitz requests to see the email as proof. The conversation ends with a debate about journalistic ethics.

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.

The speaker discusses a situation involving Professor Dershowitz and Dean Kagan at Harvard Law School. The speaker questions whether Professor Dershowitz should be allowed to keep a claim on the website, while expressing frustration with the lack of response from Dean Kagan. The speaker highlights the issue of limits on the website and gives an example of a derogatory post about Dean Kagan's mother. The speaker argues that the institutions protecting Professor Dershowitz are the problem, not him personally.

Smith onto the space. Harrison, thanks for joining. We’ve got questions about your tweet. How are you? Harrison: I’m pretty good. I just got home, trying to do Advent with my kids, so I have about ten minutes. I heard Matt Baker defending me, so I came to settle objections. What’s up? Smith: First of all, I appreciate you coming on. We’ve had disagreements on X. The first question is about your original tweet about someone telling you Charlie Kirk was going to be assassinated. Explain that, because I’ve got a question about your second tweet. Harrison: That’s it. There’s no further explanation. Somebody with knowledge of the situation told me that, and I tweeted it in response to something Ian Carroll had said, a month before. I told the story again on Moonbase Live when I talked to Jake Shields, a week before the shooting. I won’t tell you who told me because they asked me not to, but it’s basically corroborated. The person I talked to was not the same as those who talked to people like Max Blumenthal. So apparently, multiple people are telling the same story. Only I published it before the event. Did the FBI or TC or something ask you any questions about it? Smith: Nope. Harrison: And that’s the problem, Soleiman. That’s the problem right there. Smith: We’ll move on. He’s got ten minutes. The tweet today said: “the assassination of Charlie Kirk has been a resounding success for the left, they got to kill one of our shining lights, divide the right and normalise political violence and the only backlash they received was Jimmy Kimmel show got suspended for two days.” That seems to contradict your first statement, since the first tweet was before the assassination. How does that message come across? Harrison: The first tweet was before the assassination, so it couldn’t have anything to do with who I thought did it. It was before the assassination, a month earlier, and I had heard the rumor that Charlie Kirk feared for his life. The second tweet reflects the world view that most left people have: “we killed Charlie Kirk. We got away with.” It’s about the left believing they did it and got away with it, and it’s about the weakness of the right to treat threats against us with seriousness. Whether or not it was a leftist is still up in the air; I have unanswered questions about the patsy they have now. Still, the left has benefited. The left acts like they did it. The official story is the left did it, personally. I have questions about that story, but what matters is the widespread perception that the left did it and got away with it, and that informs their behavior. Smith: Do you think the widespread opinion matters? Harrison: I can’t hear you both at once. Matt? Smith: How do you feel about the genocide in Gaza? Harrison: I’m strongly against the genocide in Gaza. Vocally. Since before October 7. I’m against it as an Israeli shill? Smith: No one said that. The argument was that you’ve spoken out against genocide in Gaza before October 7, but Infowars promotes Zionist agendas and Zionist talking points, attacking Muslims in the United States and the UK. Zionist billionaires like Robert Shillman, etc. Harrison: I get it. Zionist interests overlap with mine, but it has nothing to do with Zionism in our calculus. I am for Western culture, America, heritage Americans of all backgrounds, and I’m fighting for Christianity. I’m against Muslims infiltrating Western countries, and I’m against Zionists controlling Western countries. These are not contradictory. There’s nothing Zionist about not wanting Muslims to take over your country, just like there’s nothing Muslim about not wanting Zionists to control your country. Infowars is anti-Zionist recently, and Alex condemns what Israel and Netanyahu are doing. But there’s a deliberate message of unity of all Americans who aren’t trying to dominate or subvert others. Unless they’re Christians, of course. Smith: So you’re saying you’re not arguing for a single team; it’s two enemies, rock, paper, scissors? Harrison: It’s two enemies, not one. I’m against both. I’m against Muslims taking over and against Zionists dominating. It’s not contradictory. It’s not about a single team. Smith: The point isn’t that you must pick sides; the issue is you’ve pushed claims that there is a Muslim takeover, which isn’t supported by numbers or power. People argue this is propaganda. Harrison: Okay. I don’t care whether the takeover has progressed. If I said it’s fake, I’d say that. I’ve got to go, but I appreciate the clarification. Smith: Posted on the day Jake Lang went; you were clearly talking about him. Harrison: I was talking about why Dearborn was the location of the march and why it was appropriate. Jake Lang is Jewish and Zionist; he’s not a Christian. He’s ethnically Jewish. He says he’s Christian, and in Christianity you can convert. I’ll call him a Christian man if that’s how he defines himself. Thanks.

Speaker 0 claims Netanyahu was responsible for 9/11, which helped him get into Iraq and Afghanistan. Speaker 0 repeatedly asks who bought the World Trade Center two months before the attack, accusing Speaker 1, Brian, of being paid off and a Mossad agent for not answering. Speaker 1 denies Israel was behind 9/11 and denies being Mossad. Speaker 0 calls Brian a fed and refuses to speak to him. Speaker 2 asks Brian why he won't answer the simple question and accuses him of dodging. Speaker 2 suggests Brian is inflating the situation and acting like a toddler. Speaker 0 calls Brian a shill for not answering. Speaker 0 gives Brian three seconds to answer who bought the building or be considered a paid-off shill. Speaker 1 refuses to answer.

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.

The speaker addresses Tucker, noting a perceived "obsession with Israel" when discussing foreign countries, unlike when discussing China, Japan, the UK, or France. The speaker claims that when Israel is mentioned, the question arises: "What about the Jews?" The speaker anticipates being labeled antisemitic for raising this point. The speaker denies directly asking if Jews control foreign policy, but the other person insists that is exactly what the speaker implied.