reSee.it - Related Video Feed

"Remember the whisper that changed the world? Bush heard war. Trump heard peace, and the world celebrating." "He gave Israel a ring and said, your families are coming home." "Next week, the last remaining hostages will return to Israel and be reunited with their families." "Monday. Donald Trump spent all night in the Oval Office putting the finishing touches on the Israeli Palestinian peace deal." "Nobel Peace Prize Day, And Trump hasn't been thinking about it at all." "Israel says stop the count." "With the hostages freed and when the fighting stops, fingers crossed, an alliance between Israel and Saudi Arabia can finally gel, and the Abraham Accords can spread." "Trump stopped eight wars since January." "Maybe we should let him run for a third term."

The conversation centers on allegations that October 7 was a preplanned false flag designed to ethnically cleanse Palestinians and then rebuild Gaza for vast profits. Speaker 0 asserts the plan predates October 7 and points to a confession by Jared Kushner on 60 Minutes, implying a two-year master plan developed before the attack with Steve Witkoff and Kushner pushing it. The speakers claim this is part of a broader orchestrated narrative where “the whole world is a stage.” Key claims and details include: - A “master plan” existed before October 7, with Jared Kushner “pushing this” and Kavner (Steve Witkoff) admitting advances two years prior. The implication is that October 7 served as a justification to implement the plan. - The rebuilding of Gaza is framed as a profit-driven project: billions of dollars from beachfront property and trillions from offshore natural gas resources. - There is explicit concern about the treatment of Palestinians vs. Gazans, with a critique of terminology used by Kushner, who is said to refer to the people as Gazans rather than Palestinians, signaling a shift in framing of a people’s national identity. - Three journalists were killed by Israel, including a CBS freelance reporter, and the coverage is described as being muted or “crickets” from CBS News, especially given Bari Weiss’s position at CBS News. The segment notes that over 300 journalists have been killed in Gaza, more than in any modern war, and highlights a disparity in media attention. - At Davos, Jared Kushner unveiled a plan for rebuilding Gaza under a who’s-who of international stakeholders, including a new governance structure and a “demilitarization” condition, with emphasis on a process that would be implemented in phases and under a new government in Gaza. - A “master plan” envisions zones in Gaza, previously floated ideas like a free zone and a Hamas zone, but the eventual framing is “New Gaza” aimed at employment, industry, and a destination for Gazans to thrive, contingent on security and governance. - The board of peace is described as a body that would study and publicize best practices in education, health care, and governance, with the aim of peace implementation. The plan emphasizes demilitarization and notes that without it, Gaza’s reconstruction cannot proceed. - The discussion notes that cooperation involved multiple regional actors (Israel, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE) and encourages aid and private investment, with a call to calm down and work together for peace. - Critics question whether Kushner’s plan aligns with Israeli interests, referencing biometric scans, surveillance, and concentration-camp-like measures already in place in Gaza, and noting long-term plans by settler groups to reoccupy rebuilt areas. - There is concern that appointing President Trump to a permanent role on the Board of Peace could insulate Israel from American political shifts, effectively “future-proofing” support for the plan. Participants identified include Harrison Berger from the American Conservative and Drop Site News, Laura Loomer expressing skepticism, and a reminder that media coverage has been selective in condemning or highlighting violence against Palestinians and journalists. The overall tone is that the plan is a coordinated effort involving international and corporate actors to reshape Gaza while advancing Israeli expansionist objectives, with a focus on governance, demilitarization, and economic redevelopment as prerequisites for reconstruction.

Without light, there's no path from this darkness. I understand the passion of the people and have been working quietly with the Israeli government to reduce their presence in Gaza. Thank you.

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.

If I were in charge of NATO, like Joe Biden, I would immediately pursue peace and seek assistance from Trump. Despite criticism, Trump's foreign policy was commendable as he avoided starting new wars and maintained good relations with North Korea, Russia, and China. His Middle East policy, including the Abraham Accords, was particularly successful. If Trump were president during the Russian invasion, it would have been unlikely to occur. In my opinion, Trump has the potential to save the Western world and humanity as a whole.

It's a a really significant first step, and I really commend president Trump and his administration as well as Arab leaders in the region for making the commitment to the 20 plan and seeing a path forward for what's often called the day after. Most importantly, the conflict hopefully will end with the cease fire. The hostages will be returned. And then the very hard work of rebuilding Gaza, of finding the kind of security that Israel and the Palestinians after Hamas deserved to have, moving forward with the other points in the plan to try to create an opportunity for Palestinians to have a better life and for Israel to have greater peace and security, I am very hopeful that we'll be able to see progress. Today's a good start, but we have to keep going from here.

Ioannis Varoufakis and Glenn discuss Donald Trump’s “Board of Peace” and the broader implications for international order. Varoufakis argues the Security Council’s approval of a private “owner and chair” of peace, effectively a corporation-led board, would mark the end of the United Nations and the end of international law as we know it. He notes that only China and Russia abstained on resolution 28-03 (11/17/2025), and contends the move annuls decades of UN effort on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, resetting the clock to a pre-1945 framework and erasing Palestinian claims in the resolution. He emphasizes that this would enable a border peace outside international law, restore Netanyahu’s political standing, and undermine ICJ and ICC actions that had condemned Israeli policies. He decries the privatization of peace, where a single private individual—Donald J. Trump—would not be answerable to a public or parliamentary body, merely required to report biannually to the UN. Varoufakis expands the critique beyond Palestine, arguing the Board embodies a broader privatization of international governance. He connects this to a long-standing trend: the replacement of states by corporations, a view echoed by tech-entrepreneur circles (Peter Thiel’s circle) who envision “free cities” governed by corporate boards. He traces the idea to colonial antecedents like the Dutch and British East India Companies and argues that today’s financiers and tech elites aim to privatize essential sovereignty—controlling currency, borders, and security—through private boards and privatized global governance. He contends this privatization is supported by a troubling coalition: big tech loves the privatization of power (cloud capital, AI-enabled surveillance, stablecoins, privatized dollars), the military–industrial complex benefits from ongoing conflicts and weapon sales, and Wall Street seeks rents generated by the new financial architecture (including “Genius Act” implications and the potential for private digital currencies). Varoufakis argues Trump’s alignment with these forces is designed to disrupt established Western-led international arrangements, including a weakened EU and NATO, to extract maximum rents from allies while negotiating anew with China. Discussing Canada, Britain, and Europe, Varoufakis criticizes their hypocrisy and reluctance to challenge the US, using Mark Carney’s much-discussed speech as an example. He disputes Carney’s claim that the rules-based order produced public goods like open sea lanes and a stable financial system, pointing to 2008’s financial crisis, Libya’s destruction, and ongoing Palestinian suffering as evidence of deep flaws. He argues Carney’s proposed “new alliance” of middle powers with Germany and France lacks a concrete peace initiative for Ukraine or Palestine. In the broader historical frame, Varoufakis provides two analyses of US dominance. He says the postwar American hegemony effectively ended in 1971 with the Nixon shocks and Bretton Woods’ collapse; the modern order shifted to a system where the US runs deficits, exports dollars, and relies on the private sector to shape policy. He argues Trump’s strategy is not a simple return to past practices but a bid to preserve US dominance in the face of China’s rapid rise, by privatizing the dollar, decoupling Europe, and using geopolitical salients (Greenland, Canada) as leverage. He suggests Trump’s approach aims to keep the Western wheel turning with the US at the hub, regardless of the spokes’ weakness. The discussion closes with a warning: the ongoing erosion of international law and the rise of private, corporate-driven governance could redefine the balance of power, with Europe and other allies potentially bearing the consequences of a new, privatized world order.

We must remember the plan from Egypt and the Arab nations. We've been invited by Mohammed bin Salman for discussions in Riyadh. We need to figure out how to make this beneficial for everyone, especially considering the best interests of the United States and the people of my country, Jordan. We can immediately take 2,000 sick children to Jordan and await the Egyptian plan to tackle larger issues. That gesture of taking 2,000 children with cancer or other illnesses is truly appreciated. We will work with Egypt and Jordan, with high-level assistance from others, to achieve great progress. With the United States in control of a significant piece of land, there will be stability in the Middle East for the first time. The people of Gaza will live safely in another location, free from the constant violence. They will have great homes and families, safe from Hamas. I am confident we can work something out with Egypt, almost certainly.

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

I want to talk about peace, not imposed by force, but real peace that allows nations to thrive and build a better future. Peace for all, not just for Americans. Peace that brings hope and prosperity for everyone. Peace that is essential for a meaningful life.

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.

We will take Gaza. There’s no need to buy it; it's a war-torn area that needs development. It will become a tremendous asset for the Middle East, creating many jobs and bringing peace. It fronts the sea, offering great economic potential. This is something that should have been done long ago, but the October 7th catastrophe made it a necessary action. While development will take time, it will ultimately bring stability and jobs to the region. This will benefit people across the Middle East. We will be discussing our plans with Arab representatives from the United States. My real estate background has prepared me for this endeavor, but my focus is on doing good for people as president.

Trump wants a Nobel Peace Prize, by the way, for the planned ethnic cleansing so that they could profit on the land and turn it into a beach town. This is our never again. This is a Holocaust. A Holocaust just happened. We will never forget this. You need to tell your children what happened in Gaza. You need to tell them exactly who did it, exactly whose families were involved in this. Gaza belongs to nobody but the Palestinians. So when you begin to move the Israelis in there and when the Trump hotel gets built on there, I caution the rest of the world to stay far away from that cursed land because something is coming. You can't commit that much evil in broad daylight and not think it's gonna come back to haunt you. Anyways.

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.

Donald Trump was working to bring peace between Iran and Israel, and Israel didn’t want that at all. They tried to murder the negotiators in that round of peace talks from Hamas in Doha, and they tried to tell the world that Trump signed off on this, that Trump knew, totally false. Trump did not know. Not only did they do this, they tried to implicate Trump in it. A couple of weeks later he responded with an executive order that I’m going to read verbatim because it’s bet not one in a hundred people knows this even happened. This was in September: he signed an executive order called the Assuring the Security of the State of Qatar. The order states: The United States and the State of Qatar have been bound together by close cooperation, shared interests, and the close relationship between our armed forces. The State of Qatar has hosted The United States forces, enabled critical security operations, and stood as a steadfast ally in pursuit of peace, stability, and prosperity both in The Middle East and abroad, including as a mediator that has assisted The United States attempts to resolve significant regional and global conflicts. Listen: In recognition of this history and in light of the continuing threats to the state of Qatar posed by foreign aggression, it is the policy of The US to guarantee the security and territorial integrity of the state of Qatar against external attack. The United States shall regard any armed attack on the territory sovereignty or critical infrastructure of the state of Qatar as a threat to the peace and security of The United States. Oh, wait a second. What was the last act of foreign aggression against Qatar? What happened that exact same month? It was a bombing by Israel. So Israel bombs Qatar and Donald Trump issues an executive order saying if you do that again, reading by the language here, we’re going to war with you. Donald Trump took the side of Qatar over and above Israel and told Israel, and who knows if he’d actually do it, it’s in the executive order, If you do this again, that’s tantamount to an attack on us. That’s a security guarantee. Keep that in mind because there are a lot of Trump voters who are upset about nine eleven; the residue was still in their mouth. That part of the world did it to us. Islam did it to us. And anyone who wants to have a normal relationship with an Islamic country is probably pro Al Qaeda. I get it. I know those feelings. Had them. But here Donald Trump, the guy that you voted for taking Qatar’s side against Israel. Why is that? Because Donald Trump is a secret Islamist? No. Because Qatar is a lot better for The United States than Israel has been.

If I were in charge of NATO, like Joe Biden, I would immediately pursue peace in Ukraine. I believe the best course of action would be to call back Trump. Despite criticism, his foreign policy was commendable. He avoided starting new wars and had positive interactions with North Korea, Russia, and China. The Abraham Accords in the Middle East were a significant achievement. Trump's knowledge of the world should not be underestimated, as his fact-based approach yielded the best foreign policy in recent decades. If he were president during the Russian invasion, it would have been impossible for them to proceed. In my personal conviction, Trump is the man who can save the Western world and humanity as a whole.

The speaker analyzes Donald Trump’s so-called “board of peace for Gaza” plan outlined by Jared Kushner, arguing it is utterly ridiculous, criminal, and unworkable, and would crash and burn if attempted. Key elements are scrutinized point by point. - Plan details and feasibility: Kushner claims there is no plan B for a $25 billion project to build a Dubai/Singapore-like coastal Gaza. This project would depend on Palestinian resistance disarming. Hamas and other groups have said they will not disarm; they propose storing weapons and handing them over to a future Palestinian state’s military, which Israel refuses, insisting on total demilitarization and destruction of all Palestinian resistance. Trump presents two options: the easy path of Hamas surrendering weapons, or the hard path of a military confrontation. The speaker notes Israel has already fought for more than two years in Gaza, destroyed infrastructure, and failed to defeat the resistance, with estimates of roughly the same number of fighters as on 10/07/2023. - Ground force and international stabilization: The plan envisions an International Stabilization Force (ISF) that will not be a peacekeeping force but will provide security inside Gaza to combat the Palestinian resistance and disarm them. The ISF would reportedly consist of tens of thousands of troops from multiple countries, coordinated under U.S. leadership via a civil-military coordination center. The speaker questions how such a multinational force could operate, given potential casualties and differing doctrines, and notes that some countries (e.g., Azerbaijan) have refused to commit troops. There are also five ISIS-linked militias within Israeli-controlled areas. The plan references private military contractors (UG Solutions) and a push to recruit more of them, adding to the confusion and lack of coherent strategy. The speaker emphasizes that Kushner acknowledges there is no plan B, underscoring perceived lack of substance. - Reconstruction and urban model: Kushner’s slides depict a Gaza transformed into a high-end coastal city with “areas mapped out,” implying rapid rebuilding. The speaker compares this to Gaza’s actual humanitarian reality: UN estimates suggest rubble clearance and reconstruction could take ten to fifteen years, not two to three as claimed. Israel continues bulldozing and demolishing infrastructure, even during ceasefire phases, and the speaker questions why a rapid rebuilding project would materialize when such destruction persists. - Governance, accountability, and international law: The plan is criticized as a form of colonial-style governance that would impose a new order in Gaza without granting Palestinian statehood, effectively using Gaza as a site for a “ Disneyland for billionaires.” The speaker highlights that UN Security Council Resolution 2803 (passed last November) allowed Trump’s framework, but eliminated long-standing precedents and Geneva Conventions, raising questions about legality and accountability. The speaker also notes the absence of accountability for Israel’s actions, which have involved heavy aid from US weapons and Western support yet no financial penalties. - Broader consequences and justice: The video argues that the plan presupposes a peaceful reordering of Gaza that ignores the rights and needs of Palestinians. It asserts that the only viable path to lasting peace is granting Palestinians their rights and achieving justice. The speaker warns that continuing with the current approach will backfire and that the arrogance preceding the 10/07/2023 events has led to mounting pressures and resistance, with no settlement in sight. Overall, the speaker contends the board’s proposals are incoherent, impractical, and driven by elite interests, with no credible pathway to genuine Palestinian self-determination or sustainable peace.

I grew up in a world centered around politics and Israel. Good morning, APAC. I will meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu today, and President Obama will meet him tomorrow. He once referred to me as the first Jewish president. We must stand up for Israel and the rights of the Jewish people. I could easily be elected prime minister in Israel. When Israel faces anti-Jewish hatred, it is anti-Semitism. I am a Zionist, and we need to support Israel. We are committed to making Israel great again. This is serious; we must save Israel.

If I were in charge of NATO, like Joe Biden, I would immediately pursue peace in Ukraine. I believe the best course of action would be to call back Trump. Despite criticism, his foreign policy was the most successful in recent decades. He avoided starting new wars and had positive interactions with North Korea, Russia, and China. The Abraham Accords in the Middle East were a significant achievement. Trump's knowledge and education were questioned, but his actions speak for themselves. If he were president during the Russian invasion, it would not have been possible. In my personal conviction, Trump is the one who can save the Western world and humanity.

Trump may have already launched a war, restarting Biden and Obama's wars. The United Arab Emirates won't allow the US to use its base in Abu Dhabi for an attack. Iran is better than others who stand with Israel or do nothing for Palestine. A war on Iran is what Netanyahu wants, who has been dragging Trump in his direction. Trump came to power claiming he was a man of peace and wanted a Nobel Peace Prize, but now he is being dragged into military actions. An attack on Iran would be a huge disaster for the region, the world's economy, and everybody. Netanyahu dreams of being the new imperial leader controlling the Middle East. Netanyahu seems to control Trump. The whole crowd around Trump is Zionist and totally supportive of Israel. Trump has forced Netanyahu to accept a temporary ceasefire, but now supports violations of every ceasefire by Netanyahu. This will lead to disasters for everybody, including the United States.

Speaker asserts that Iran is the chief of staff of the foreign ministry, and proceeds to share a development. I a decade ago when I started this, I had a vision of establishing an ambassador program to commission impostors to become ambassadors for the state of Israel. I wrote the curriculum, and just in the last month, the prime minister of Israel has approved the program. He's gonna sign the diplomas. He's gonna speak at the graduation. And the chief of staff here is going to be flying the pastors to Israel for this this ceremony. So he's he's our partner in this new initiative, this ambassador program.