reSee.it - Related Video Feed

In this complex and emotional situation, it is important to agree on a few fundamentals. Killing children, whether Israeli or Palestinian, is morally wrong. Antisemitism is also wrong, and recent attacks against Jewish people are horrifying. It is not acceptable to take out anger on individual Jewish people because of the actions of the Israeli government. Many Jewish individuals support the Palestinian cause and are experiencing fear and shock. Similarly, it is unfair to judge every Palestinian, Muslim, or Arab based on the actions of Hamas. Supporting Palestinian freedom does not mean supporting Hamas.

Israel does not retaliate without rules. If we were to stoop to the level of committing crimes against humanity, we would be forced to be just as terrible ourselves. I believe we should at least credit ourselves with the ability to not descend into barbarism. Our problem today is more about weakness.

The speaker emphasizes the need for independent answers regarding the failures of US and Israeli intelligence and defense. They support Israel's right to defend itself but caution against an emotional response and the risk of getting involved in a broader regional conflict. They criticize the Republicans for their unhelpful emotional response and stress the importance of cool-headedness in times of crisis. Another speaker highlights the severity of the situation by comparing it to a hypothetical attack on the US. The first speaker believes that Israel should make its own decision and offers compassion, support, and lessons from past US mistakes. They suggest offering limited munitions to Israel for self-defense without escalating into a broader regional war.

Deploy acts of kindness that are clear and genuine, countering any perceptions of trickery. This approach can combat the broader hatred in the region. The saying "an eye for an eye makes everyone blind" highlights the futility of revenge. If violence leads to more hatred and recruits for groups like Hamas, it fails to achieve peace. Killing one Hamas member may create more enemies, especially if innocent lives are lost in the process. The focus should be on whether actions lead to more or fewer terrorists over time, aiming for long-term peace rather than immediate retaliation.

The speaker describes a personal progression of political and emotional shifts surrounding support for Israel and the treatment of Palestinians. They begin by recalling that they had supported Israel for many years, expressing surprise and distress at what Israel is doing. This leads to anger directed at Israel for “misguiding me all my life and getting me to support the maltreatment of Palestinians.” The frustration is not only about external actions but about the sense of having been deceived, and this provokes a second wave of emotion: anger directed inward. The speaker says they became angry at themselves for being such a dupe and for being so ignorant and never checking anything out. This self-directed anger is followed by shame and embarrassment, which then give way to a deeper sorrow for the Palestinian people and all that they have endured. amid these feelings, the speaker aligns with a particular critical perspective. They state their agreement with Noam Chomsky’s claim that “this propaganda stands on thin ground,” using that reference to support their view of the situation. They argue that one of the reasons people become so hysterical when confronted with the facts is that they know, at some level, they do not admit certain realities. The speaker notes that “most people I’ve met” do not admit that they’ve never studied the history, even if they implicitly know it. The implication is that there is a cognitive dissonance or a hidden awareness that contradicts widely held beliefs. The speaker emphasizes that, deep down, people know they haven’t studied the history. Therefore, when confronted with a revision that proves what they believed was completely wrong, those people can become hysterical. This observation connects the emotional responses of anger, self-blame, guilt, and sorrow to a larger claim about how people react to new historical information that challenges their established beliefs. The overall narrative traces a personal journey from long-standing support and subsequent anger at external forces, through internalized guilt and shame, to a compassionate concern for the Palestinian people, all within a framework that cites a scholarly critique of propaganda and the emotional defensiveness it provokes.

The reaction to Jeffrey Sachs' critical views on Israel raises questions about why there's pressure to conform to pro-Israel sentiments. There's a belief that discussing foreign countries should not be met with hostility, especially when prioritizing American interests. The focus should be on free speech and analyzing viewpoints without attributing hidden motives. Engaging with diverse opinions, even from those with differing beliefs, is essential. The discussion emphasizes that every country must act within its means and make decisions based on its interests. Life involves navigating complex relationships, and it's crucial to maintain open dialogue rather than succumb to divisive pressures.

Speaker 0 delivers a public apology for criticisms of Israel, stating he is deeply sorry and that it is a learning moment with six lessons from his grave mistakes. He admits making videos that heavily criticized the Israeli government while attempting to distinguish that he was not criticizing Jewish people or Israeli citizens, but he says hostile comments convinced him that he was talking about Jews, not the government. He notes that comments calling him a Jew hater and anti-Semite changed his mind, and he acknowledges feeling intimidated by such remarks. He describes how some viewers, including one commenter who said, “you moron,” helped him realize he was engaging in Jew hate. He says that the hostility, insults, and character smearing from haters were effective in shaping his views, and asks what those people believe, intending to emulate them. He mentions the existence of a poll showing that those using hostility are in the 5.5% minority, while 94.5% do not want hostility to be used to persuade them. He also notes that many haters have Israel flags in their bios and contrasts this with perceptions about Ukraine, asserting that Israel is our greatest ally and that he stands with Israel—now more strongly. He then recounts a conversation with two Jewish friends, where he apologized for hating them. He says they rejected his framing, explaining that criticizing Netanyahu does not equate with hating Jews. They mention that only 40% of Israelis trust Netanyahu, that many Israelis have concerns about him, and that citizens in Israel are God’s chosen people while Netanyahu is their leader. They challenge his views on dispensationalism and Zionism, arguing for different biblical interpretations of Israel and God’s chosen people, and suggest many Israelis do not have DNA from the Middle East, referencing DNA testing bans in Israel. He responds with hostility, saying, “God, I hate you people,” and notes that the friends did not accept his apology because they weren’t convinced he genuinely hated them. He also mentions JP Sears and accusations of Jew-hating for profit, and alleges financial success from such views. The six lessons from his mistakes are: 1) Align with the side censoring you, since censorship is “on the right side of history,” encouraging support for politicians trying to criminalize criticizing or boycotting Israel. 2) Distrusting any government makes you a stupid sack of shit, and thinking otherwise marks you as hating Jews. 3) When faced with tribalism and intimidation, you should comply to align with truth and gain freedom as an individual. 4) Israel has no influence over the US government or its politicians, and lobbying connections are not indications of influence; claiming otherwise is antisemitic. 5) Thinking it’s a crime or evil to commit genocide, prisoner rape, or killing children is not true; such beliefs are antisemitic. 6) Do whatever it takes to fight an ongoing war with Iran, unrelated to Israel, trusting the government on this, and hoping for actions to uncover supposed WMDs in Iraq. Speaker 0 closes with an apology and a final appeal to learn from these mistakes.

Checklist for summary approach: - Identify and preserve the core facts, insights, and conclusions without adding new analysis. - Highlight unique or surprising elements (e.g., calls for Nuremberg II trials, journalist impact, public opinion data). - Exclude repetitions and filler; focus on the evolution of emotional and political reactions. - Translate any non-English context to English (not needed here). - Keep exact terms where possible (genocide, hostages, journalist reporting, public polls). - Aim for a concise 392–491 word summary that captures both speakers’ points and the dialogue’s tension. The transcript condensed: Speaker 0 describes a mixed emotional reaction to recent developments: Israelis held in Gaza for two years reuniting with families, and Palestinians held in Israeli dungeons—about 2,000 people—many for years or months without charges, whom he also calls hostages lacking due process. He is moved by these reunions and by the momentary halt of what he calls a genocide, preventing bombing and possible incineration of Gazans. Yet he recalls two years of genocidal violence as unspeakable and notes the lack of accountability for Western leaders who participated, observing Western leaders visiting Egypt to commemorate an end to the violence. He questions how to emotionally and intellectually react to this “mixed bag of incentives.” Speaker 1 counters by branding President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu as “two war criminals” responsible for genocide since December 2023 in Gaza, arguing they would be found guilty at Nuremberg II trials and would be hung. He asserts Trump has aided the genocide during nearly nine months in office, and that Netanyahu is guilty as well, yet both are treated as conquering heroes—eliciting his sense of sickness and frustration at the absence of accountability. He suggests that once journalists enter Gaza and report the full story, including on platforms like TikTok, global dismay could hinder Israel from restarting the genocide. He clarifies he isn’t asserting likelihood, but hopes increasing documentation and voices will pressure Israel, the United States, and Europe to shut down the genocide permanently, though he concedes uncertainty. Speaker 0 then notes global public opinion appears to be turning against Israel, particularly in Western states reliant on it, and cites military pause as a tactic to relieve pressure and allow Israel’s military to rebuild. He suggests that Western elites are incentivized to resume pro-Israel positions, aided by domestic lobbying, and questions whether the pause will relieve pressure or enable normalization. Speaker 1 responds that elites are morally bankrupt, including the Biden administration’s deep involvement in the genocide, but acknowledges pressure from below—such as shifts in the Republican Party and Democratic Party, and European actions like Italy’s general strikes and a German poll showing 62% of Germans believe Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. He believes the rising information will help people “wrap our heads around it” and possible pressure to act, though outcomes remain uncertain.

I teach at Duke University and notice that many college students today view the world through a lens where those with less power are seen as being wronged and therefore right. This mindset leads them to automatically support the underdog, even without fully understanding the situation. After a recent event on October 7th, many young people quickly sided with Palestinians without considering the full context, sometimes even supporting Hamas.

Speaker 0 discusses collective punishment as disgusting and expresses fear that the United States may be crossing a Rubicon, drifting toward a moral framework it may not recognize. The question is raised: are we adopting the ethics of the Israeli government? Acknowledge that Israel is a very complicated topic with 9,000,000 people, not all of whom agree with this stuff. But the Israeli government has been moving ever more openly toward a policy where, “I don’t like the guy, but I’m also gonna kill his kids because they could grow up to be that guy.” This is described as the antithesis of Western civilization. There is a distinction between East and West. Western civilization, Christian civilization rejects that approach. It is not just a piece of civilization but the foundation stone of civilization. This is why we don’t put families on trial for the crimes of the father, whereas other countries do. We never have, and we never can, because that’s the opposite of justice. The most basic concept in the West is that God created each person as an individual, and as an individual, you’ll be judged for what you do, not for what your ancestors did or what children did. This “primacy of the individual” created by God and the existence of the individual soul form the basis of what used to be called human rights. Human rights apply to humans by virtue of the fact they’re human; the rights come from God because He made humans in His image.

The current conflict in Israel and Palestine raises the question of why there always has to be an immediate answer. War is devastating, with no winners and civilians paying the price. Governments rarely face consequences proportional to the destruction caused. The need for immediate and dogmatic responses leaves no room for moderation or observation. The interests driving global conflicts are often not those of the people, but rather the governments and military-industrial complex. Wars are fueled by a money-hungry culture, with profits increasing as lives are destroyed. We must question if these conflicts are truly ours to decide. The powerful manipulate narratives to convince the masses of their choices, even to their own detriment. We must seek a third way that exposes the real enemy: the amalgamation of money, government, and corporations. We should not sacrifice our children for profit or allow ourselves to be divided into simplistic sides.

The speaker addresses the use of artificial intelligence or Lavender by the IDF in identifying Hamas targets. They state they are not on top of all the details of what’s happening in Israel and that their bias is to defer to Israel. They say it’s not for us to second guess everything. They conclude that broadly the IDF gets to decide what it wants to do and that they’re broadly in the right.

Mario opened by asking Professor (Speaker 1) for his initial reaction to the horrific shooting in Australia, noting Iran’s spokesperson condemned the attack. Professor 1 said the Iranians were swift to respond and suggested the western media’s speed benefits the Israeli regime; he noted early suggestions that one of the alleged culprits has a Salafi Wahhabi background, which he tied to allies of the United States and Israel, and said the Israeli regime has historically supported ISIS and Al Qaeda. He added that the immediate accusations against Iran by Israel and some Western outlets raise questions. Mario pressed Professor 1 on his tweets, asking whether he genuinely believes Mossad could be behind the Sydney attack or if he was critiquing others’ blaming Iran. Professor 1 replied that he wouldn’t put anything beyond Mossad and the Israeli regime, citing the Hannibal directive during October 7 and noting past high-profile conspiracies and investigations where insiders seemed to know more than the public. He referenced 9/11, claiming the attackers’ backgrounds and stock market movements suggested possible foreknowledge, and argued that a regime that carries out genocide could do anything. He asserted that the obsession with blaming Iran in various cases is a frequent pattern, and that the Australian media had started implying Iran’s involvement in the Sydney attack. Michael interrupted to challenge the framing, asking Professor 1 to distinguish between critiquing Israeli actions and endorsing unfounded claims about Iran. Professor 1 argued that for nearly fifty years accusations have often targeted Iran, while Israel’s actions — including genocidal traits and hospital bombings — have not faced equivalent condemnation, though he clarified he had not claimed Israel carried out every conspiracy. He asserted that ISIS and Al Qaeda were created by Western interests and Gulf regimes, and alleged U.S. and Israeli involvement in supporting extremist groups. He claimed Western policy and Saudi/Wahhabi influence underpin these groups, and argued Israeli and Western power shapes Middle East outcomes. Michael commented that the discussion should avoid knee-jerk conspiracism and noted the pattern of blaming Israel for many attacks, while acknowledging legitimate grievances against Israel’s conduct. He cited a May Washington, DC attack linked to Gaza motivations and argued this blowback results from Western support for extremist groups, including ISIS and Al Qaeda. He criticized using blanket attribution to Israel, stressing that this rhetoric crowds out rational critique of Israel and U.S. policy. He referenced Epstein as an example of alleged intelligence connections and warned activists to beware of being portrayed in compromising footage. The conversation shifted to Netanyahu’s statement blaming Australia’s recognition of a Palestinian state for the attack. Professor 1 condemned Netanyahu’s framing, calling him anti-Semitic for conflating Judaism with Zionism and arguing that Palestinians are Semites; he claimed the Israeli regime’s influence in Washington is substantial and that accusations against Iran distract from Israel’s genocide. He argued that many Jews oppose the Israeli regime, and that Zionism cannot be equated with Judaism. He reiterated that the regime’s policies, including alleged use of Wahhabism and Western support for extremists, have fueled blowback. Mario asked for final reaction on Netanyahu’s claim and the broader role of Western policy. Michael acknowledged the complexity and described Western-Israeli influence as significant, while insisting on avoiding unfounded accusations about any single actor. Professor 1 condemned terrorism in all forms but argued that the main culprits are those carrying out genocide in Palestine, with the slave-vs-oppressor framing underscoring his view of the Palestinian situation. The discussion closed with a note that both guests view Western policy and Israeli actions as central to global blowback, while cautioning against simplistic attributions of attacks to Iran or Israel without solid evidence.

The speaker was asked why not blame Hamas for the atrocities. They explained their mission was to gather information, not assign blame. The speaker acknowledged the frustration of the people of Israel and emphasized the need for the government to provide access for further investigation.

Interviewer and Professor engage in a wide-ranging discussion about October 7 and its aftermath, focusing on verified facts, contested claims, and the broader political context. - What is known about October 7: Professor states roughly 1,200 people were killed that day, with about 400 combatants and 800 civilians among the dead. He relies on authoritative human rights reports (UN Human Rights Council Commission of Inquiry, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch) but notes these organizations are not infallible. He maintains there is no compelling evidence that the deaths in Israel’s subsequent reaction were a significant portion of the total, and he rejects the claim that Hamas weaponized rape on October 7, arguing there is no evidence of mass rape and criticizing the idea as a political tactic. - Eyewitness testimony: The Professor criticizes eyewitness accounts that portray Israel as “the most moral army,” suggesting such testimonies may be biased by nationalistic or military-culture factors in Israel. He emphasizes that Israelis’ strong sense of unity and service in the army can influence narratives, and he questions the consistency of eyewitness reporting given the context of the festival attack. - The rape allegations: The UN Commission of Inquiry says it has no digital or photographic evidence of rape, and other officials (Pamela Patten, UN special envoy for conflict-related sexual violence) did not present direct forensic evidence. Patten examined thousands of photographs and hours of digital evidence but concluded there was no direct evidence of sexual violence on October 7. The Interviewer notes other outlets’ reports (BBC, New York Times) on rape and other abuses; the Professor counters by reiterating the lack of direct forensic or digital evidence and highlights inconsistencies in testimony and reporting. - Hamas planning and the larger context: The Professor traces Gaza’s humanitarian crisis back to long-term occupation, blockade, and international indifference. He cites early 2000s descriptions of Gaza as a concentration camp and describes deteriorating conditions through 2008 and beyond. He argues that by late 2023, Gaza faced extreme unemployment and social destruction, suggesting that the decision by Hamas to act on October 7 was shaped by a sense of urgency and desperation in a context where regional incentives (e.g., Saudi Arabia joining the Abraham Accords) had shifted, effectively signaling that Gaza’s prospects were collapsing. He asserts that Hamas sought diplomacy and international law prior to October 7, citing past attempts at truces and engagement with human rights organizations, and notes that these efforts were largely ignored. - Comparison of political paths in the region: The Interviewer draws contrasts between Gaza and the West Bank, noting the latter’s relatively different trajectory. The Professor argues that Israel’s goal is to subordinate rather than conquer, contrasting it with Egypt or Jordan and highlighting the Gaza situation as distinct from other regional dynamics. He asserts that the West Bank’s path remains different from Gaza’s, though critical of settlements. - The Trump peace plan and the Security Council resolution: The Professor explains that a UN Security Council resolution endorsed the Trump peace plan and established a “board of peace” with sovereign powers in Gaza, effectively transferring authority to a body headed by Donald Trump. He claims the resolution endorses the Trump plan in full and that the board answers to no external accountability, with a six-month reporting requirement to the Security Council. He contends that this amounted to “handing Gaza over” to Trump and argues that temporary transitional authority would be insufficient to address reconstruction and humanitarian needs, given Israel’s stated aim of making Gaza unlivable. - Arab states’ support and the geopolitical calculus: The Professor argues that many Arab states supported the resolution due to coercive pressure or incentives (e.g., economic consequences if they refused), and he criticizes their alignment as a “death warrant” for Gaza. He expresses deep skepticism about the motives of regional actors and dismisses the idea that their support signals genuine commitment to Gaza’s welfare or a viable path to reconstruction. - The future of Gaza: The Professor asserts that Gaza is effectively “gone,” citing World Bank and UNKDA/IMF assessments that rubble clearance and reconstruction would require decades (minimum 15 years for rubble clearance, potentially 80 years for reconstruction under previous rates). He contends that Israel’s objective has been to render Gaza uninhabitable, leaving residents with a choice to stay and die or flee, and he critiques the willingness of various Arab states to endorse terms that lock in that outcome. - Closing stance: The discussion ends with the Professor reaffirming his grim assessment of Gaza’s prospects under the current framework, while the Interviewer expresses a mix of skepticism and concern about regional dynamics and the path toward a two-state solution.

Speaker 1 emphasizes the need to focus on the reality of the situation rather than assigning blame. They express the desire to stop the violence and allow Israel to live in peace and security. However, they argue that the current war is endangering Israel even more and is not leading to the desired outcome. Speaker 1 criticizes Israel's response to the attack, stating that it is neither targeted nor proportionate, but rather driven by a policy of vengeance. They highlight the indiscriminate nature of the retaliation, resulting in the deaths of innocent civilians. The speaker calls for a change in strategy and suggests considering a ceasefire or humanitarian pause to address the dire situation faced by the Palestinian population, who are effectively trapped in besieged cities.

The speaker questions why not blame Hamas directly for the atrocities. They clarify their mission was to gather information, not assign blame. Despite survivors' accounts, the speaker emphasizes the need for the Israeli government to provide access for verification. They acknowledge the frustration and trauma in Israel.

I teach at Duke University and observe that many college students today view the world through a lens where marginalized groups are always right. This mindset leads them to automatically support the underdog, even in complex situations like the conflict between Israel and Palestine. After October 7th, many young people quickly sided with Palestinians without fully understanding the situation, sometimes even supporting Hamas.

Speaker 1 responds to Speaker 0’s question by describing a recurring tactic: when Europeans criticize Israel, the Holocaust is invoked; when people in the United States criticize Israel, they are labeled antisemitic. He calls this a trick that is "we always use it," and notes that the organization behind this dynamic is strong and has a lot of money. He asserts that there are very deep ties between Israel and the American Jewish establishment within the United States, and that those ties are strong. He acknowledges that they have power, and he attributes this to their talent as well as their wealth and media influence. He describes them as possessing "power, money, and media, and other things," and characterizes their attitude as: "Israel, my country, right or wrong." He claims they identify with fiction, suggesting they are not ready to hear criticism. According to Speaker 1, it is very easy to blame people who criticize certain acts of the Israeli government as antisemitic and to bring up the Holocaust and the suffering of the Jewish people. He contends that this dynamic is used to justify everything that is done to the Palestinians. In his view, criticism of Israeli policy by Europeans or Americans is reframed as antisemitism, and the Holocaust is leveraged to shield Israeli actions, thereby silencing dissent and rationalizing actions against Palestinians.

The speaker discusses how the Israel lobby and some Congress members labeled Tucker Carlson “literally Hitler” and argue he’s the greatest threat since Hitler to Jewish people, prompting calls for censorship. He then references a leaked video, reportedly from good people in Israel, showing Israeli troops committing mass anal gang rapes, and notes that Netanyahu described the ensuing disclosure as the worst PR attack and disaster in Israeli history, though not condemning the acts themselves but criticizing the leak and the Israeli media for publicizing them. He argues that the exposure is, in his view, a positive development for Israel because it reveals wrongdoing, while condemning Netanyahu for framing it as a PR disaster. The speaker questions why the focus is on PR rather than the morality of the acts, asking why perpetrators aren’t imprisoned and criticizing pundits on Israeli TV who allegedly suggest normalizing or endorsing such violence. He asserts that Hamas and similar groups are morally condemned, but emphasizes that Netanyahu’s reaction is more about public relations than moral concern. He asserts that evil exists broadly, including in communist China and within the US government, and argues for exposing corruption rather than covering it up, insisting that a moral code is necessary—“a creed to live by,” citing John Wayne and declaring Christian and America-first principles. He presents examples of what he characterizes as “truly disgusting” mainline Israeli TV content, including statements endorsing violence against Muslims, and claims that such rhetoric demonstrates a lack of moral authority. He asserts that there is global scrutiny and that certain Israelis who expose wrongdoing should be in charge, not those who defend or hide it. The speaker then shifts to promoting his platform and legal battles to shut down his show, directing listeners to the AlleyShowStore.com (not his ownership), describing it as funding InfoWars and the Alley Show network. He promotes products, including ultra methylene red and methylene blue, claiming strong, quick effects, non-stimulant feelings, and high customer satisfaction (an 80-plus percent reorder rate for methylene blue). He advertises a sale with autoship options, 50% off future orders, and 25% sitewide discounts through a Black Friday/Cyber Monday-style promotion, noting the deals are time-limited and could end at any moment. He mentions the availability of methylene red on alexjonesstore.com and asserts a broader “disturbance in the force” motif, inviting wide access to these products.

The speaker condemns Ian Carroll for making videos that claim Israel is behind conspiracies about Red Lobster, Applebee's, and Burger King, and for a live stream asking, “Where are you Nick? … Why are you with them?” He asks where the evidence is and notes the tendency to attribute almost every event to Israel, stating, “the heuristic seems to be Israel is behind literally everything,” past and future, which he calls ridiculous. He points to a September 7 tweet where Carroll said Charlie Kirk is “working for the Jews that killed Jesus,” and contrasts it with Carroll’s certainty on September 11 that Israel killed him to silence him, questioning what changed in those four days and suggesting Carroll may have ESP or telepathy. He accuses Carroll of grifting, intellectual laziness, and dishonesty, and refuses to be pulled into blaming Israel for killing the number one Israel defender in America. The speaker asserts personal history and credibility, saying, “I’ve been over here. I was at Charlottesville” in 2017, and that in 2019 he led the Gruyper war against Charlie Kirk, labeling Kirk as an “Israel shill.” He claims that from Turning Point’s founding in 2012 to today, the organization has been “owned by Israel and served Israel.” He recounts a June text in which Charlie Kirk told Dinesh D’Souza, “Nick Fuentes is vermin,” and notes the ongoing fight against him for six years, including Kirk’s August statement calling him “anti Semitic garbage” and his refusal to debate. The speaker describes Charlie Kirk’s inner circle and media connections: Kirk’s right-hand man Andrew Colvin comes from Salem Media, a Christian Zionist outlet aligned with Israel, with Melissa Strait having connections to Salem and Prager University and IDF unit 12082. He notes Colvin led a “struggle session about Israel” after a Turning Point SAS conference in July. He claims that when Israel bombed Qatar in contravention of Trump’s foreign policy, Kirk invited Ben Shapiro to present Israel’s position, while Kirk acted as moderator, and on the day Kirk “was shot,” he prepared to defend Israel with his rabbi at Provo as he drafted a book on the Jewish Sabbath. The speaker emphasizes that the person accused of fighting Israel was “the guy that was murdered,” and expresses pity for those who would believe that. He asserts, “I’m right here where I’ve always been, following the facts, following the money, looking at the information,” claiming to be light years ahead of Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson, and rejecting the idea that their ideology is about Netanyahu or Israel’s foreign policy, concluding, “No, sorry. Absolutely not. That’s totally ridiculous.”

It's horrific to see young people murdered at a music festival in Israel, and Israel has the right to defend itself. However, as American policymakers, our priority is the interests of the United States. The conflict between Israel and Hamas could escalate into a global war, potentially involving nuclear weapons and economic collapse. We need wisdom and long-term thinking, but instead, we're seeing reckless reactions. Some are calling for war with Iran, without considering the consequences. We need to ask tough questions like what went wrong with US and Israeli intelligence that allowed this to happen? We need to secure our own borders and stop funding both sides of conflicts. American leaders should focus on advancing American interests first.