reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 questions whether Benjamin Netanyahu deliberately boosted Hamas to prevent a Palestinian state. Speaker 1 answers yes, it was deliberate and systematic, even on record: “Whoever wants to avoid the threat of a two state solution has to support my policy of paying protection money to the Hamas.” With the prime minister’s permission, Qatar was allowed to transfer a huge amount of cash, probably more than $1,400,000,000. By doing it, they increased Hamas’s power, with the objective that Hamas would continue to control Gaza while the Palestinian Authority would control the West Bank so they would fight each other. Speaker 0 states that Netanyahu maintained the Qatar money was to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe. Having helped to build up Hamas, Netanyahu has now vowed to destroy it. He “fed the beast,” and it exploded in our face. If national security strategy is based solely on force, then one would need to win twenty four seven forever.

The ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine significantly impacts America. A viable solution requires uniting Hamas and Fatah for honest elections, with a focus on the 1967 borders and modifications for a two-state solution. However, Netanyahu's push for a one-state solution threatens Israel's future and resembles apartheid, as Palestinians face severe restrictions and domination by Israelis. Many Americans and Israelis remain unaware or unwilling to confront the harsh realities in Palestine, where human rights abuses are prevalent. Political pressures in the U.S. hinder open discussions about Israel's legal boundaries and the Palestinian plight. There have been no peace talks in over seven years, and any congressional member advocating for change risks losing their position.

In a discussion with Glenn about rising US-Iran tensions and the prospect of war, Syed Mohamed Marandi, a professor at Tehran University and former adviser to Iran’s nuclear negotiation team, outlines several key points and scenarios. - He asserts that Iranians are preparing for war, with the armed forces building new capabilities and underground bases, while ordinary Iranians remain calm and continue daily life. He notes large demonstrations on February 11, with up to 4,000,000 in Tehran and 26–34,000,000 nationwide, seen as a show of solidarity against what he calls Western “rioters or terrorists” and against aggressive posturing by Israel. He stresses that Iran government negotiations will be framed around Iranian sovereignty: Iran will not negotiate who its friends are, who its allies are, or give up its rights to a peaceful nuclear program or enrichment, but could consider a nuclear deal. He argues any new deal would not revert to JCPOA terms given Iran’s technological advances and sanctions. He says a deal is unlikely under current conditions, though not impossible, and that even with a deal, it wouldn’t necessarily endure long. Ultimately, Iran is portrayed as preparing for war to deter aggression and preserve sovereignty. - The conversation discusses broader regional security, linking Israeli-Palestinian issues to potential peace. Marandi argues that Zionism has ethnosupremacism and that Western media often whitewashes Israeli actions in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon. He emphasizes that a genuine peace would require recognizing Palestinian humanity and restoring fair treatment, arguing that a one-state solution could be the only viable path given the West’s failure to secure a lasting two-state arrangement. He contends the West has allowed colonization of the West Bank and that only a one-state outcome will resolve the situation, while portraying growing international hostility toward the Netanyahu regime and Zionism, including among young Jews. - On possible US strategies, Marandi rejects the notion of token strikes, arguing that even limited actions would invite broader conflict and potentially false-flag provocations that could be used to escalate toward war. He warns that Iran would respond with full force and could target US bases, naval assets, and regional interests, potentially shutting the Strait of Hormuz or sinking ships, with widespread economic ramifications. He predicts a regional war involving Iran’s allies in Iraq (where PMF played a key role against ISIS) and Yemen, and Hezbollah, suggesting that Arab Gulf regimes hosting US bases would likely collapse quickly in such a conflict. He stresses that Iran’s missile and drone capabilities are heavily focused on the Persian Gulf area and that war would be existential for Iran and its allies, but a dangerous, protracted challenge for the United States. - The potential consequences of US oil and petrochemical disruption are discussed. Marandi notes that Iran could retaliate against Iranian tankers or, conversely, seize Western tankers in response to piracy. He emphasizes Iran’s comparatively lower dependence on oil exports due to sanctions and sanctions-driven diversification, arguing that attacking Iran would backfire economically for the US and its allies. He also highlights that such a war would be regional, not just Iran versus the US, given Iran’s relationships with Iraq, Yemen, and other actors, and that Gulf regimes would be under immediate pressure. - Regarding current US leadership and narrative control, Marandi critiques the inconsistency of Western narratives around regime change, human rights, and democracy, pointing to the Epstein files as revealing a distrustful climate in Western politics. He argues Western media often uniformly pushes a narrative of Iranian repression while ignoring or whitewashing similar or worse actions by Western allies. He suggests that the lack of a cohesive, credible Western narrative signals a shift in geopolitical dynamics and could limit the ability to mobilize public support for aggressive actions against Iran. - They also touch on US-Israeli diplomacy, noting Trump and Netanyahu’s posturing and the Epstein documents’ potential implications. Marandi contends time is not on the side of aggressive policy, given midterm political pressures in the US and growing public skepticism about war, which could undermine leadership like Trump and Netanyahu if conflict escalates. The discussion ends with acknowledgment of the complexity and volatility of the situation, and gratitude for the opportunity to discuss it.

The speaker questions the understanding of those who chant "free Palestine," explaining that it actually means the end of Israel's existence. They argue that Israel is the only Jewish state and that Jews and Arabs live there peacefully. They express concern about what would happen if Hamas took control of Israel and criticize the support for Hamas despite their oppressive actions. The speaker also highlights the assistance Israel provides to Gaza and questions why Hamas does not provide basic necessities. They argue that supporting Israel is the path to peace. Another speaker shares their experiences in Israel, including the security measures and restrictions faced by Israelis. They express doubt in the two-state solution and believe that Israeli control is necessary for the region's stability. Another speaker discusses the aid provided to Palestine by the US and challenges the notion that all aid goes to Israel. They highlight the significant amount of assistance given to Palestine and the recent announcement of additional humanitarian aid.

The conversation centers on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Iran, and regional dynamics, with Speaker 0 (a former prime minister) offering sharp criticisms of the current Israeli government while outlining a path he sees as in Israel’s long-term interest. Speaker 1 presses on US interests, Lebanon, and the ethics and consequences of the war. Key points and claims retained as stated: - Iran and the war: Speaker 0 says he supported the American strike against Iran’s leadership, calling Ayatollah Khamenei’s regime a brutal threat and praising the move as punishment for Iran’s actions, including backing Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. He questions why there was a lack of a clear next-step strategy after the initial attack and asks whether a diplomatic alternative, similar to Obama’s Iran agreement, could have achieved nuclear supervision without war. He notes the broader regional risk posed by Iran’s proxies and ballistic missiles and emphasizes the goal of constraining Iran’s nuclear program, while acknowledging the economic and security costs of the war. - On Netanyahu and influence: Speaker 1 references the New York Times report about Netanyahu’s influence on Trump and asks how much Netanyahu affected the decision to go to war. Speaker 0 says he isn’t certain he’s the best judge of Netanyahu’s influence but believes Netanyahu sought to push the war forward even during a ceasefire and that Iran’s threat required action, though he questions whether the next steps beyond initial strikes were properly planned. He states, “Iran deserve to be punished,” and reiterates the need for a strategy to end hostilities and stabilize the region. - Proxies and regional instability: The discussion highlights Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis as Iranian proxies destabilizing the Middle East, with Speaker 0 insisting that Iran’s support for these groups explains much of the regional violence and Israel’s security concerns. He argues that eliminating or significantly curbing Iran’s influence is essential for regional stability. - Gaza, West Bank, and war ethics: Speaker 1 cites humanitarian and civilian-impact statistics from Gaza, arguing that the war has gone beyond a proportionate response. Speaker 0 concedes there were crimes and unacceptable actions, stating there were “war crimes” and praising investigations and accountability, while resisting the accusation of genocide. He criticizes certain Israeli political figures (e.g., Ben-Gvir, Smotrich) for rhetoric and policies that could protract conflict, and he condemns the idea of broad acceptance of annexation policies in the South of Lebanon. - Lebanon and Hezbollah: The core policy debate is about disarming Hezbollah and the future of Lebanon-Israel normalization. Speaker 0 argues against annexing South Lebanon and says disarming Hezbollah must be part of any Israel–Lebanon peace process. He rejects “artificial” solutions like merging Hezbollah into the Lebanese army with weapons, arguing that Hezbollah cannot be permitted to operate as an independent armed force. He believes disarming Hezbollah should be achieved through an agreement that involves Iran’s influence, potentially allowing Hezbollah to be integrated into Lebanon’s political order if fully disarmed and bound by Lebanese sovereignty, and with international support (France cited). - Practical path to peace: Both speakers acknowledge the need for a negotiated two-state solution. Speaker 0 reiterates a longstanding plan: a two-state solution based on 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine, the Old City administered under a shared trust (involving Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Palestine, Israel, and the United States). He emphasizes that this vision remains essential to changing the regional dynamic and that the current Israeli government’s approach conflicts with this pathway. He frames his opposition to the present government as tied to this broader objective and says he will continue opposing it until it is replaced. - Personal reflections on leadership and regional hope: The exchange ends with mutual recognition that the cycle of violence is fueled by leadership choices on both sides. Speaker 0 asserts that a different Israeli administration could yield a more hopeful trajectory toward peace, while Speaker 1 stresses the importance of accountability for war crimes and the dangers of rhetoric that could undermine regional stability. Speaker 0 maintains it is possible to pursue peace through a viable, enforceable two-state framework, and urges focusing on disarming Hezbollah, negotiating with Lebanon, and pulling back to an international front to prevent further escalation. Overall, the dialogue juxtaposes urgent punitive action against Iran with the imperative of a negotiated regional settlement, disarmament of proxies, and a concrete two-state solution as the viable long-term path, while condemning certain actions and rhetoric that risk perpetuating conflict.

Speaker 0 asks why President Trump unleashed Prime Minister Netanyahu to resume genocide in Gaza, resulting in the intentional killing of 400 civilians. Speaker 1 believes Trump has no choice, due to agreements with major donors beyond Miriam Adelson, obliging him to underwrite Netanyahu's actions. Speaker 1 notes Netanyahu arranged a meeting between the U.S. and Azerbaijan, not the State Department, indicating the Israel lobby's grip. Speaker 1 believes Trump is obliged to comply and won't diverge. Speaker 0 asks if Trump has no choice but to militarily back Israel if it attacks Iran. Speaker 1 thinks so, noting the possibility of Israel precipitating a war with Iran. The expectation is the U.S. will reinforce Israeli actions, with joint strike planning and intelligence sharing already in place. Speaker 1 believes it's a foregone conclusion, though the timing is uncertain.

The speakers discuss the blame for the current situation in Israel. Speaker 0 suggests blaming the Bush administration, but Speaker 1 disagrees. Speaker 1 explains that the Clinton administration's proposal to Arafat and the Palestinians had provisions and catches, and negotiations continued until they were aborted. Speaker 1 also mentions the lack of serious engagement in the peace process during the last 8 years. Speaker 0 admits to being superficial and asks Speaker 1 to educate him. Speaker 1 clarifies that Arafat did not walk away from the proposal and negotiations continued, but the process eventually got aborted. Speaker 0 acknowledges Speaker 1's knowledge and mentions the collective standards of the international community.

The speaker claims the Hamas Charter, written in 1988, has no status and doesn't apply anymore. They contrast this with the governing party in Israel, rooted in Herut, which they say maintains the position that the entire land of Israel belongs to the Jews, including Jordan. The speaker describes a cycle since 2005: Israel disregards ceasefire agreements, maintains the siege, and increases violence; Hamas initially complies until Israeli escalation provokes a reaction. They state Hamas is not a nice organization, but that is for the Palestinians to worry about. The speaker asserts the U.S. is not supporting Hamas. Instead, the U.S. supports massive criminal operations all over the region, blocking peace, which the speaker believes should be the focus.

Speaker 0 asks what should be done if Israel is attacked by an outside force. Speaker 1 argues that the focus should be on preventing conflicts by actively engaging in the peace process, rather than reacting after the fact. Speaker 0 disagrees, stating that the current situation in Israel cannot be blamed on the previous administration. Speaker 1 criticizes Speaker 0's limited understanding of the past events.

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 speaker discusses the difficulty of predicting the situation in Gaza, particularly regarding whether Israel will send ground forces. They mention that while there has been talk of eradicating Hamas, the Israelis may have realized that it would cause more trouble. Military force is not seen as a solution to the political problem, and the speaker highlights the dilemma Israel faces. They mention that bombing Gaza is disastrous and does not solve the problem, but not taking action allows Hamas to continue causing trouble. The speaker suggests that a two-state solution was the solution, but it is unlikely to happen due to Israel's right-wing politics. They conclude by stating that even if they were to advise Netanyahu, he wouldn't listen or be able to execute a two-state solution due to the current political climate in Israel.

The speaker states they never want to see a diplomatic resolution with Hamas. They say they wanted a ceasefire, but have always been committed to the destruction of Hamas. They add that they wanted a ceasefire, but have always made clear that they wanted to see a different authority moving forward in governance of Gaza.

The conversation centers on Israel’s war with Iran and its broader regional implications, with Speaker 0 (an Israeli prime minister) offering his assessment and critiques, and Speaker 1 pushing for clarification on motives, strategy, and policy directions. Key points about the Iran war and its origins - Speaker 0 recalls learning of the war on February 28 in Washington, and states his initial reaction: the United States’ claim that Iran is an enemy threatening annihilation of Israel is understandable and something to be supported, but questions what the next steps and the endgame would be. - He argues that Iran, through proxies like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, posed a global and regional threat by arming missiles and pursuing nuclear capacity, and asserts that Iran deserved punishment for its actions. He raises the question of whether the outcome could have been achieved without war through a prior agreement supervised by international bodies. - He emphasizes that the lack of a clear, articulated next step or strategy undermines the legitimacy of the war’s continuation, even as he concedes the necessity of addressing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. - He also notes that the war affected the global economy and regional stability, and stresses the importance of coordinating a path that would end hostilities and stabilize the region. Speaker 1’s analysis and queries about U.S. interests and Netanyahu’s influence - Speaker 1 questions the rationale behind U.S. involvement, suggesting that strategic interests around the Strait of Hormuz and Iran’s nuclear program were not the only drivers, and cites reporting that Netanyahu presented Iran as weak to push Trump toward regime change, with limited pushback within the U.S. administration. - He asks how much influence Netanyahu had over Trump, and whether the war was pushed by Netanyahu or driven by broader strategic calculations, including concerns about global economic consequences. - He notes that, even if Iran was making concessions on nuclear issues, the war’s continuation raises concerns about broader U.S. and global interests and the potential damage to European and allied relationships. Israeli-Lebanese dimension and Hezbollah - The discussion moves to Lebanon and the question of a ground presence in the South of Lebanon. Speaker 1 asks whether Netanyahu’s administration intends annexation of Lebanese territory and whether there is a real risk of such plans, given the recent destruction of villages and the broader context of regional diplomacy. - Speaker 0 distinguishes between military necessity and political strategy. He says the ground operation in southern Lebanon is unnecessary because Hezbollah missiles extend beyond 50 kilometers from the border, and he argues for negotiating a peace process with Lebanon, potentially aided by the international community (notably France), to disarm Hezbollah as part of a larger framework. - He asserts that there are voices in the Israeli cabinet that view South Lebanon as part of a Greater Israel and would seek annexation, but he insists that such annexation would be unacceptable in Israel and that disarming Hezbollah should be tied to a broader peace with Lebanon and Iran’s agreement if a negotiations-based settlement is reached. - The idea of integrating Hezbollah into the Lebanese military is rejected as artificial; disarmament is preferred, with the caveat that Hezbollah could not be dissolved as a military force if Iran remains a principal backer. Speaker 0 suggests that a Hezbollah disarmed and integrated into Lebanon’s political-military system would require careful design, potentially with international participation, to prevent Hezbollah from acting as an independent proxy. War crimes and accountability - The participants discuss imagery like a soldier breaking a statue of Jesus and broader allegations of misconduct during the Gaza war. Speaker 0 condemns the act as outrageous and unacceptable, while Speaker 1 notes that individual soldier actions do not represent an entire army and contrasts external reactions to abuses with a broader critique of proportionality in Gaza. - Speaker 0 acknowledges that there were crimes against humanity and war crimes by Israel, rejects genocide, and endorses investigations and accountability for those responsible, while criticizing the political leadership’s rhetoric and the behavior of certain ministers. - They touch on the controversial death-penalty bill for Palestinians convicted of lethal attacks, with Speaker 0 characterizing the Israeli government as run by “thugs” and criticizing ministers for celebratory conduct, while Speaker 1 argues that such rhetoric inflames tensions. Two-state solution and long-term vision - The conversation culminates in Speaker 0 presenting a long-standing two-state plan: a two-state solution based on 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine, and the Old City of Jerusalem not under exclusive sovereignty but administered by a five-nation trust (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Palestine, Israel, and the United States). - He asserts that this approach represents an alternative to the current government’s policies and reiterates his commitment to opposing Netanyahu’s administration until it is replaced. - They close with mutual acknowledgment of the need for a durable peace framework and reiterate that Hezbollah’s disarmament must be a condition for normalization between Israel and Lebanon, while cautioning against artificial or compromised arrangements that would leave Hezbollah armed or entrenched.

Speaker 0 asserts that Netanyahu was continually helping Hamas to survive. Speaker 1 claims that while Netanyahu was under investigation, he arranged for Hamas to receive $35,000,000 every month from Qatar. Speaker 2 contends that Netanyahu cannot give the money himself because Israel would not give money to Hamas, and banks would not cooperate, so Netanyahu must beg Qatar, a small but very rich country, to provide money to their enemy. Speaker 0 contends that these suitcases of money were given to Hamas at the personal request of Benjamin Netanyahu, and that because the Qatari side knew him from the beginning, they asked him to send their requests in writing because they believed he would lie in the future. Speaker 1 asserts that Netanyahu allowed more than $1,000,000,000 to be transferred to the hands of Hamas because he believed he could control the level of hatred, and states that this notion is nonsense, adding that he cannot control the flames.

The speaker acknowledges that the Israeli government and the US are part of the problem. They mention that in 2000, the Israeli government offered a Palestinian state, but it was turned down by Arafat and the PLO. There were also unsuccessful attempts to bring Palestinians and Israelis together during the speaker's time as Secretary of State. The speaker highlights that Israel left Gaza in 2005, but Hamas destroyed the infrastructure left behind and caused harm to Palestinians. They believe it is important to dislodge Hamas and work towards a two-state solution.

Professor and Host engage in a wide-ranging discussion about the Iran-Israel-Lebanon dynamic, the prospects for war, and the potential paths to change. - They open with tensions around Iran, suggesting that Netanyahu and the Israeli lobby won’t let Iran “rest,” and that Iran is implicated in the current Lebanon conflict while insisting that Lebanon’s fight is Lebanon’s own. The Professor stresses that Hezbollah is a Lebanese organization and not a direct Iranian proxy, and that Iran’s involvement is framed by its own interests rather than as an intrusive occupation of Lebanon. - The Host challenges this view, noting that Lebanon’s government decided not to join the war and that Hezbollah rearmed in the south, arguing that Iran has influence in Lebanon and that Hezbollah’s actions reflect a broader proxy dynamic in the country. The Professor counters that Hezbollah is not a proxy and emphasizes Lebanon’s sovereignty and internal affairs, while arguing that Iran can assist resistance groups when asked but should not be blamed for all Lebanese actions. - They discuss the state of the conflict: is the war over or a ceasefire that could resume? The Host asks for a probability estimate (1–10); the Professor places it at six or seven that it could re-ignite, arguing that Trump and Netanyahu will continue to push Iran and that the regime in Tehran will respond, given new leadership and a determination to avoid being disarmed or appeased. - On aims and capabilities, the Professor cites Trump’s stated desire to take over Iranian oil (per a Financial Times interview) and to “change Iran’s government,” including the idea of disintegrating Iran and establishing an Israeli-driven hegemony in the region. He also suggests Trump views oil leverage as a strategic tool against China, drawing on broader geopolitical ambitions such as the North-South Corridor. The Host and Professor discuss the idea of leveraging Iran’s oil to pressure or blockade China and to influence global power dynamics. - The conversation moves to the larger question of how to achieve U.S. objectives short of full-scale war. The Host suggests non-military options beyond sanctions, including possible tolls, business deals, or new arrangements around the Strait of Hormuz, while the Professor argues that sanctions relief would require Congressional action and that Netanyahu’s influence makes relief unlikely. The Host proposes that sanctions relief could be tied to dismantling proxies like Hezbollah, with Iran receiving asset unfreezing in exchange, and a tollbooth mechanism as possible recompense. - They compare political systems: the Host asks whether a more pragmatic Iranian leadership could compromise with the West, while the Professor challenges the notion of embracing Israel or normalization absent broader regional changes. They discuss Iranian internal politics, including protests and the 2021–2024 leadership shifts, arguing that the current leadership is generally more energetic and less likely to exercise restraint under renewed pressure. - The Wall Street Journal summary is invoked: a shift to a harderline leadership within Iran, with Mustafa Khamenei described as consolidating power and surrounding himself with hardliners who view destroying Israel as central. The Host and Professor debate whether this portends greater confrontation or potential pragmatism in dealing with the United States, emphasizing that any significant rapprochement would hinge on broader regional dynamics and the role of Israel. - The discussion turns to the prospects for a two-state solution versus a one-state outcome in Palestine. The Professor contends that a one-state solution would be unlikely unless Israel changes fundamentally, while the Host notes shifts in Western public opinion and some American youths showing increasing sympathy for Palestinian rights. They acknowledge that most polling in the U.S. still supports a two-state framework, even as younger demographics show divergent views. - They close with mutual acknowledgement that there is no straightforward path to peace, reiterating concerns about possible future confrontations, the influence of external powers, and the complexities of Lebanon’s sovereignty, Hezbollah’s role, and Iran’s internal politics. The Host and Professor each express hopes for peace, while recognizing the likelihood of continued strategic competition rather than a clear, immediate resolution.

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 speaker discusses the Israeli policy of managing the conflict with Palestinians instead of solving it. This involved ensuring a lack of unified Palestinian leadership and allowing Hamas to control Gaza while weakening the Palestinian Authority. However, this inadvertently strengthened Hamas's support among Palestinians. The speaker also mentions how Palestinians feel abandoned by Arab states and the United States, leading them to choose more extreme options. They express concern about the idea of creating a human disaster in Gaza and emphasize the need for a political goal in conflicts, rather than just military objectives. The speaker hopes for a resolution that considers the concept of two states and ensures Israel's safety as a Jewish democratic state.

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.

An Israeli questions whether there can be peace with Hamas, believing they want to wipe out Israel and kill Jews. The response highlights that not all Palestinians are Hamas, just as not all Israelis are right-wing extremists. The speaker believes in the possibility of change and the importance of finding a way to coexist with Palestinians as equals. They emphasize the need to provide full human rights, equality, and democratic norms to both sides in order to live together harmoniously.

The speakers discuss the possibility of a two-state solution and the former president's involvement in Ukraine negotiations. Speaker 1 asks Speaker 0 about reconsidering conditions on Israel, to which Speaker 0 responds that they believe they can find a solution. Speaker 1 mentions different types of two-state solutions, including countries without their own military and states with limitations. Speaker 0 mentions that BBS opposes the two-state solution but doesn't specify what he is open to. The conversation ends with Speaker 1 asking if they discussed it that morning.

Hamas agreed to a ceasefire. Israel should go in, destroy them and their infrastructure. Americans should kill those holding Americans. The speaker believes Israel is the terrorist, killing Palestinians with American tax dollars. The other speaker accuses them of being heartless and soulless, referencing Holocaust Remembrance Day. The conversation ends with accusations of hate and being a crime against humanity. Translation: Hamas agreed to a ceasefire. Israel should go in and destroy them and their infrastructure. Americans should kill those holding Americans. The speaker believes Israel is the terrorist, killing Palestinians with American tax dollars. The other speaker accuses them of being heartless and soulless, referencing Holocaust Remembrance Day. The conversation ends with accusations of hate and being a crime against humanity.

Speaker 0 accuses Hamas of lying and emphasizes the importance of other democratic states like Germany, Britain, and France recognizing this. Speaker 1 acknowledges that this is the opinion of Israel, but also mentions that Hamas has denied these claims. Speaker 0 interrupts to clarify that Hamas has indeed lied, and they believe it will continue to do so. They claim to have evidence to support their statement.

Speaker 0 asserts that “What happened in October 7 was an Israeli setup,” and questions whether Benjamin Netanyahu deliberately boosted Hamas to prevent a Palestinian state. The question is framed as a direct challenge: “Yeah. Sure. He deliberately and systematically even even told this on record. Whoever wants to avoid the threat of a two state solution has to support my policy of paying protection money to the Hamas.” The removal of ambiguity is emphasized by the speaker’s phrasing that this was done “with the permission of our prime minister” and involved letting Qatar transfer a huge amount of money in cash, “probably more than $1,400,000,000,” with the claimed effect of increasing Hamas’s power. Speaker 0 then shifts to interrogate a separate line of inquiry, asking whether there was a “stand down order,” repeating the question: “Was there a stand down order? Six hours? I don’t believe it.” The speaker emphasizes realism by labeling the question as legitimate and non-conspiratorial: “Was did somebody in the government say stand down? That is a legitimate non conspiracy question.” The closing remark asserts a collective identity and responsibility: “The whole country is the IDF. The whole country is.”

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.