reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speakers present a narrative in which Netanyahu is portrayed as having knowingly enabled Hamas rather than created it, arguing that “he fed it” and that keeping Gaza under Hamas control and the West Bank under Fateh was a deliberate strategy to prevent Palestinian unity. They claim Netanyahu “dealt with Hamas for a long time as a strategic friend” and that he “was all the time helping Hamas to survive” in order to maintain a balance that served his aims. One speaker alleges that while Netanyahu was under investigation, he arranged for Hamas to receive “$35,000,000 every month from Qatar.” Another adds that “Israel will not give money to the Hamas,” and that “you cannot even transfer this money through banks because even the banks don't want to cooperate,” so Netanyahu was said to “beg this small and very rich country, Qatar, to give money to our enemy.” The claim is further sharpened by asserting that “this suitcases of money was given to Hamas under the request of Benjamin Netanyahu personally,” with the assertion that “the Qatarians knew him from the beginning” and “they were asking him to send them his requests in writing because they knew that he's going to lie in the future.” A speaker contends that Netanyahu “allowed more than 1,000,000,000 to be transferred to the hands of the Hamas because he believed that he can control the level of hatred,” labeling that belief as “nonsense” and arguing that “he cannot control the flames.” The allegation is that Netanyahu’s strategy was to “keep Hamas there, weaken the Palestinian authority on the West Bank, sustain the extremists, weaken the moderate,” a approach that, according to the speakers, “exploded in our faces in the most brutal way on October 7.” Finally, one speaker describes Netanyahu as repeatedly presenting himself as “the expert on terrorism” and “the protector of Israel,” and asserts that under his regime, the country has entered into “this incredible, unbelievable war.”

The documentary traces Benjamin Netanyahu’s career through a web of security crises, personal power, and ongoing legal jeopardy, arguing that his decisions have been driven by a perceived need to survive corruption investigations while mobilizing fear and factional support to stay in power. It begins with a stark claim: nothing concentrates Netanyahu’s mind like the sound of the prison gate, and that his actions over the last five years were focused on that possibility, with the corruption trial becoming a dominant factor in decision making. The engine, according to interviewees, is the corruption cases, and Netanyahu’s attitude toward the law, with “Anyone that dare to touch mister Netanyahu is doomed.” After October 7, the war became another instrument to stay in power. Several speakers observe that Netanyahu survived in a state of war, in instability, and during divisions among Israelis, noting that a “forever war” benefits him by making people feel constantly endangered and in need of his leadership. A political analyst adds that the trial “took all of us hostage,” while others describe how Netanyahu’s inner circle—referred to as a “sugar daddy” network—provided resources not supported by the state, ensuring political operations despite legal trouble. The relationship between Netanyahu and powerful business figures emerges as central. Arnold Milchan, an Israeli-born Hollywood producer who amassed wealth and influence, is described as a crucial conduit to the prime minister, with Netanyahu and his wife Sarah allegedly receiving gifts valued at a quarter of a million dollars. Milchan’s favors to Netanyahu and the suspicion that Milchan was bribing the prime minister are part of the ongoing breach of trust indictment, which centers on Netanyahu’s access to Milchan and possible protection or preferential treatment in return. The documentary also covers Shaul Alovich (Shai Alovich) and Yair and Sara Netanyahu’s media and political influence, including a controversial arrangement in which Netanyahu secured control of the Walla news site in return for signatures enabling Alovich to access cash. The witnesses describe the Netanyahu circle pressuring finance and tax laws to benefit Milchan and other allies, sometimes invoking American pressure and visa issues in the background. Key personal dynamics are highlighted. Sarah Netanyahu is portrayed as a powerful decision-maker who selects advisers, schedules, and policy, with accounts of her alleged mistreatment of workers and involvement in a sex scandal known as the “hot tape” scandal. The documentary suggests that Netanyahu’s fear and need to appear in control intensified after 2015, a turning point when his political team believed he could prevail regardless of public accountability, leading to a deterioration in judgment and trust. The narrative then shifts to Netanyahu’s long-established stance on terrorism and security, portraying him as an expert on terrorism and defender of Israel, whose televised performances built his popularity. This posture is juxtaposed with his handling of Hamas: the state’s support for Hamas, the flow of money to Hamas via Qatar at Netanyahu’s instruction, and the belief that Israel could control the level of hatred by direct support or management of Palestinian authorities are all presented as part of a strategy that backfired, culminating in October 7. The documentary asserts that his Gaza policy—keeping Hamas in Gaza to weaken the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank—failed catastrophically, and that support for hardline right-wing figures like Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich within his coalition has pushed Israel toward a more expansive, militarized approach, including settlement expansion and punitive actions in the West Bank. Public reaction is depicted as deeply divided. Weeks of demonstrations against judicial reform showed a country split, with protesters fearing that reform would castrate the judiciary and undermine democracy, while Netanyahu and his supporters argued reforms were essential, insisting that the investigations themselves forced drastic measures. The civilian toll of the war—over 15,000 deaths in Gaza at the time of filming, and ongoing hostages—adds urgency to calls for action, with hostage families pressing the government for results and accusing Netanyahu of prioritizing political survival over ending hostilities and securing captives’ release. In conclusion, the documentary presents Netanyahu as a leader who has navigated crises by leveraging fear, strengthening coalition ties with far-right figures, and pursuing judicial changes that he argues are necessary for national security, while his opponents insist the reforms are designed to shield him from legal jeopardy. The film ends by reiterating that the war and the political crisis are intertwined, with the region’s chaos shaping Netanyahu’s tactical choices and the public’s willingness to endure them.

Charlie Kirk openly questioned the story Israel was trying to tell the world about October 7. Was there a stand down order? Was there a stand down order? Six hours? I don't believe it. There's also another country that asked Qatar to support Hamas. It was Israel. In 2018, Netanyahu himself sent a secret letter to the Qatari leadership. In that letter, he urged Qatar to deliver $30,000,000 a month to Gaza. That policy was approved by the full Israeli Security Cabinet. Qatar just gifted The United States a $400,000,000 jet. Israel sending bombs in return is one heck of a thank you note. Is American hegemony in 2025 really watching our own air defenses shooting down US funded bombs launched from US made planes?

Israel encouraged and started Hamas to counteract Yasser Arafat. The speaker claims this served Israel's purpose at the time. The U.S. imposes its system on the world, such as invading Iraq to teach people how to be Democrats. The U.S. encouraged Palestinians to have a free election, and they elected Hamas. The speaker asserts the U.S. indirectly and directly, through Israel, helped establish Hamas. After Hamas became dominant through the election, the U.S. then had to kill them. The speaker concludes this does not make sense.

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 Middle East has changed significantly in the past 20 years. If Israel were to ethnically cleanse Gaza, it would lead to a war with the region. Iran is not responsible for triggering this conflict, as Qatar funds Hamas, not Iran. Additionally, Qatar also funds Turkey, which holds significant power in the Middle East.

The discussion centers on claims that Hamas is sending missiles into Israel and that some missiles are coming from populated areas. The speaker says Hamas used money that came into Gaza for construction purposes—such as roads and other needs—and also used some of that money to build “very sophisticated tunnels” into Israel for military purposes and “for survival purposes.” The conversation turns into an argument about Israel’s right to resist. The speaker repeatedly affirms “Israel has a right to resist,” saying that if people do not accept this, they “don’t” understand the premise. Multiple interruptions occur as the speaker tries to answer a question that was asked. The exchange becomes focused on control of the microphone and who is allowed to speak. The speaker insists they are answering the question and objects to being “interrupted” or “disturbed.” Another participant challenges the interaction by arguing about the need for open discussion, describing a desire to “discuss it with people” and urging the other person to come down and be “democratic.” The speaker characterizes their ongoing responses as part of “democracy,” stating that the question was asked and they are answering it, and asking to be allowed to “let him finish.” The transcript ends with the speaker saying they do not want to be disturbed or interrupted while continuing their response.

What's happening in The Middle East, in particular with Gaza right now, we have some more responsibility for both sides in a way because we provide help and funding for both Arab nations and Israel. And so we definitely have a moral responsibility, and especially now today, the weapons being used to kill so many Palestinians are American weapons, and American funds is essentially are being used for this. But there's a political liability, which I think is something that we fail to look at because too often there's so much blowback from our intervention in areas that we shouldn't be involved in. Hamas, if you look at the history, you'll find out that Hamas was encouraged and really started by Israel because they wanted Hamas to counteract Yasser Arafat. And he said, well, that was better then and served his purpose, but we didn't want Hamas to do this. Then we have election, then Hamas becomes dominant, so we have to kill him.

Israel wanted peace with the Arabic world since its existence. The PLO was founded in 1964 when the West Bank was in Jordan's hands and Gaza was in Egypt's, not because of occupation, but to eliminate Jews. Palestinians lost Gaza and the West Bank in 1967 because they preempted an attack against Israel. In 2000, Ehud Barak offered 97% of territories back, but it was refused. In 2005, Israel withdrew from Gaza, removing its people and even Jewish remains from cemeteries. Greenhouses exporting $50 million in flowers were left for Palestinians, but they destroyed synagogues and greenhouses. Hamas then had an election. A woman was elected to the cabinet of Hamas because she had videos of her sons dressing as suicide bombers. Hamas put Palestinians in a prison in Gaza. Gaza could have been Singapore, but instead, Hamas built tunnels instead of helping their people. Palestinians brought this on themselves.

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.

Israel encouraged and started Hamas to counteract Yasser Arafat. The speaker claims this served Israel's purpose at the time. The U.S. imposes its system on the world, such as invading Iraq to teach people how to be Democrats. The U.S. encouraged Palestinians to have a free election, and they elected Hamas. The speaker claims the U.S. indirectly and directly through Israel helped establish Hamas. Because Hamas became dominant after the election, the U.S. then had to kill them. The speaker concludes that this does not make sense.

Speaker 0 argues that the United States bears responsibility for the conflict in The Middle East, particularly Gaza, because we provide help and funding for both Arab nations and Israel. He states that American weapons are being used to kill many Palestinians and that American funds are essentially supporting this, creating a moral responsibility. He also highlights a political liability, noting that there is blowback from interventions in areas where the U.S. should not be involved. Regarding Hamas, he claims that history shows Hamas was encouraged and started by Israel to counter Yasser Arafat, and while that served a purpose at the time, the U.S. did not want Hamas to emerge. He describes a sequence in which, after asserting that the U.S. has a good system and aims to impose democracy globally, the U.S. pushes for free elections, which leads Palestinians to elect Hamas. He asserts that the U.S. helped establish Hamas indirectly and directly through Israel, and after Hamas becomes dominant, the U.S. then feels compelled to kill Hamas, describing it as illogical. In the 1980s, he notes that the U.S. was allied with Osama bin Laden while contending with the Soviets. He says that our CAA (likely CIA) believed it was beneficial to radicalize the Muslim world to compete with the Soviets, financing Madrasa schools to radicalize Muslims. He argues that this policy produced significant blowback. He concludes that there are many reasons to oppose a certain resolution, stating that it is not in the interest of the United States and not in the interest of Israel either.

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.

"Charlie Kirk openly questioned the story Israel was trying to tell the world about October 7." "Was there a stand down order? Was there a stand down order? Six hours? I don't believe it." "In 2018, Netanyahu himself sent a secret letter to the Qatari leadership." "In that letter, he urged Qatar to deliver $30,000,000 a month to Gaza." "So in May 2025, Netanyahu publicly admitted that since 2018, his government had allowed Qatar to transfer money to Hamas in Gaza, and that was according to his own request." "That policy was approved by the full Israeli security cabinet." "Qatar just gifted The United States a $400,000,000 jet." "a foreign country has just signed a $45,000,000 deal with Google to spread propaganda. It's Israel."

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.

The discussion centers on whether Netanyahu's government is in serious trouble and what recent developments suggest about Israeli politics and the Gaza situation. - Protests and public sentiment in Israel: Proponents point to large weekly protests in Tel Aviv against Netanyahu, noting claims of “massive protests” that have drawn thousands, with some saying a quarter of a million previously. The speakers emphasize that demonstrations before October 7 indicated substantial opposition to Netanyahu, including calls for a commission of inquiry into corruption and judicial overreach. They also acknowledge a shift after October 7, with Netanyahu attempting to build a coalition and currently holding about 65 of 120 seats, suggesting he remains in power. One speaker asserts that protests are used politically, while acknowledging their scale in the center of Israel. - Netanyahu’s political standing and coalition: The speakers describe Netanyahu as facing multiple felony charges related to corruption and note his history of coalition-building with smaller parties. They argue that war and conflict are used domestically to unite the population and distract from corruption allegations. They suggest Netanyahu’s government is the most extreme right-wing in Israel’s history, with two cabinet ministers having felony convictions for anti-Arab hate crimes and holding key security and finance roles. The prognosis offered is that Netanyahu is not likely to be removed from power soon, potentially leading through 2030. - Funds to Hamas via Qatar before October 7: A new report from the Tel Aviv newspaper Idiot “Iranath” states that Israel asked Qatar to increase funds transferred to Hamas in Gaza less than a month before October 7. The claim is that Netanyahu-era officials knew the money would enable Hamas to divert funds to arms and military preparedness, and that Hamas was exploiting Qatar’s civilian aid to strengthen its military capabilities. The discussion emphasizes that Israel funds Hamas indirectly through Qatar, and that nothing entering Gaza happens without Israeli knowledge or approval. - Stand-down orders and the October 7 attack: The conversation discusses Israeli stand-down orders and the protests among IDF soldiers about the events of October 7. There is an assertion that some young women in IDF outposts were put at risk, with questions about what the government knew and whether it allowed certain actions. The speakers describe a view that the Israeli military and political leadership may have been complicit or negligent regarding operations on October 7, including claims about attempted obfuscation of investigations and the Hannibal directive. - CIA, John Kiriakou, and past U.S. behavior: The dialogue references CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou, noting his exposure of the Bush torture program and contrasting U.S. actions with Israeli policies. John Kiriakou comments on his experiences in the Middle East, including an anecdote about discussions in Riyadh in 1991 regarding Gaza’s infrastructure, and he asserts that Netanyahu’s government is deeply integrated with actions surrounding Hamas. - Prospects for accountability and investigations: The speakers express strong doubt about a credible investigation into October 7, arguing that Israel is in “survival mode” and that Netanyahu will not be imprisoned. They describe proposed commission arrangements as potentially whitewashing, with Netanyahu seeking to appoint some members himself, and they predict that the investigation is unlikely to be thorough or independent. - Summary stance: The discussion presents Netanyahu as politically resilient despite corruption charges, with a broad right-wing coalition and ongoing protests. It underscores the interconnections between Israeli funding structures for Hamas through Qatar, the alleged stand-downs surrounding October 7, and perceived obstacles to a transparent, independent accountability process.

We created Hamas as a counterweight to Fatah, thinking it would be a prayer organization that would compete with them. However, we couldn't predict what it would become. Now, we have to consider the facts and decide whether to conquer Gaza and destroy Hamas, regardless of the cost.

- Shortly before the attack, the government allegedly ordered the removal of all military presence from the area, giving Hamas a “free pass” to enter and begin their operation. In the following videos, former Israeli Defense Force (IDF) members warn that something very concerning is happening in Israel. - Afat Fenningzon reports, dated 10/07/2023, that Israeli defense forces around Gaza were instead positioned around the West Bank due to security concerns, leaving the Gaza envelope unoccupied. He says about 60 to 80% of that area was left without IDF forces. He notes that a year earlier there was a Gaza operation to prepare for such events, and ongoing trainings for these scenarios exist. This raises questions about Israeli intelligence: two years ago there were successful deployments of underground barriers with sensors to alert on terrorist breaches, yet there was zero response to the border and fence breaching. He emphasizes that Israel has a highly advanced military and questions how there could be no indication of what was coming, given that a cat moving near a fence would trigger forces. He asks, “What happened to the strongest army in the world? How come border crossings were wide open?” He describes the chain of events as very unusual and not typical for the Israeli defense system. He calls the current government highly corrupt and asserts the previous one was no better, stating his goal is to expose evil forces. He characterizes the surprise attack as seemingly a planned operation on all fronts and, if he were a conspiracy theorist, would say it feels like the work of the deep state. He suggests the people of Israel and the people of Palestine have been sold to “higher powers,” acknowledging how difficult the reality is to fathom. - Speaker 2 questions how the strongest army and the most sophisticated intelligence in the world could allow a few hundred Hamas fighters to enter Israel and cause the attack, while Hamas fighters did not meet any Israeli resistance in the area. He asserts it is not logical and implies there is more behind it, suggesting Israel sacrificed its own people and civilians on the Gaza border, removed protection and the army, and allowed Hamas to carry out their actions. He reiterates that Israel has the most sophisticated intelligence and a strong army, yet such an incursion occurred, implying hidden mechanisms or plans at work.

Speaker 0 argues that “they’re making hundreds of billions of dollars a year more,” and that this funding emboldens them to give their proxies “weapons, money, and the vigor to attack the Jewish state,” which he says is unacceptable in the international community. He sets the stage for a connection between large flows of money and aggressive action by those proxies. Speaker 1 responds by asserting that “the only reason that Hamas attacked Israel, the only reason they’ll able to is because of increased Iranian funding,” and adds that Hamas is funded “in part” by Iran but that Hamas also receives funding from various other sources. He names possible funders such as Iran and Qatar and questions who funds Iran, suggesting multiple sponsors. Speaker 0 presses the point with a direct question, “Who funds Iran?” prompting Speaker 1 to identify Qatar as a potential funder. Speaker 0 repeats and confirms, expressing uncertainty about specifics by saying, “Buffans? Okay. Who from Hamasi? Of course they do. Right?” Speaker 1 continues with uncertainty, noting that “they were transferring a whole lot of money to the Gaza Strip” and references the Gaza funding issue as a major scandal associated with Netanyahu, described as “one of the big scandals that Netanyahu was involved in,” tied to letting that money pass through to the Gaza Strip, though he adds “I don’t know this is supervision.” In the dialogue’s core, Speaker 0 posits a logical implication: “If Iran gets more money, that’s good for Hamas. Right? You agree on that? Come on.” Speaker 1 responds with a cautious “Broadly speaking,” and Speaker 0 presses further, urging Speaker 1 to concede one point, addressing him by name, Steven. Overall, the exchange centers on the linkage between international funding, particularly Iranian and Gulf-state money, to Hamas and its activities, with attention to the claim that large monetary flows empower proxies to threaten Israel, and with references to past allegations about the transfer of funds to Gaza and the political fallout surrounding those funds.

Speaker 0 opens with "we wanna see the maniacs of Hamas be defeated" and notes "Israel, bombed Qatar, which houses a lot of Hamas officials," asking "What happened here? ... Will this potentially endanger America's own interest in The Middle East?" He contrasts Israel's aims with "unconditional surrender" and asks, "Is that what Israel is aiming for here?" He wonders what "success look[s] like" in Gaza after about twenty-three months and what could have been done differently "on the PR front" or "conduct front." A claim heard is "Israel is committing genocide." The discussion touches on media skepticism, accusations that Israel wants to "ethnically cleanse," and asks for a five-year outlook. The remark "you can't be MAGA if you're anti Israel" prompts Ben Shapiro's response: "And it is totally fine to say to people who wish to destroy our civilization, no, your values suck, and they don't belong here."

- The public blames Netanyahu for October 7 as the one who fed the beast. He did not create Hamas, but he fed it. - Netanyahu, who is against peace and against having a Palestinian state, dealt with Hamas for a long time as a strategic friend. It was important for him to keep Gaza under the control of Hamas and keeping the West Bank under Fateh and preventing them from being united in any way. In order to do so, Netanyahu was all the time helping Hamas to survive. - At the same time that he was under investigation, he arranged for Hamas to receive $35,000,000 every month from Qatar. - Netanyahu can't give the money by himself. Israel will not give money to the Hamas. You cannot even transfer this money through banks because even the banks don't want to cooperate. So you, the Israeli prime minister, needs to beg this small and very rich country, Qatar, to give money to our enemy. - This suitcases of money was given to Hamas under the request of Benjamin Netanyahu personally. And because the Qatarians knew him from the beginning, they were asking him to send them his requests in writing because they knew that he's going to lie in the future. - He allowed more than 1,000,000,000 to be transferred to the hands of the Hamas because he believed that he can control the level of hatred. It's nonsense. He cannot control the flames. - Your strategy was keep Hamas there, weaken the Palestinian authority on the West Bank, sustain the extremists, weaken the moderate. This exploded in our faces in the most brutal way on October 7. - Bibi tells the world again and again and again, I'm the expert on terrorism. I know how to fight terrorism. I'm the protector of Israel. And under his regime, we get into this incredible, unbelievable war. - I think we have to finish the job. We can finish the job. Victory is within reach, and that's our goal, total victory. Our fight is your fight, and our victory is your victory. Tonight, I wanna speak to you about total victory. Total victory over Hamas. Unless we have total victory, we can't have peace. - Total victory doesn't actually mean anything here in actuality. You know all of the casualties and death and suffering, and that's what it looks like in reality. That's what those words actually mean. - My dear friends, the word Gaza could end tomorrow if Hamas surrenders, disarms, and returns all the hospital. That's what total victory means, and we will settle for nothing less. - Netanyahu comes to the congress because he needs Americans desperately. - My friends, I came to assure you today of one thing. We will win. - He wants the Israeli public to be proud to have their leader speaking in front of this very prestigious group and getting applauded so many times. He's speaking to the American Congress, but he's really speaking to the Israeli public. - I would say that, tragically, the Americans don't know how to call him out. There was no plan for ending the war of Gaza, bringing the hostages home, and changing dynamics in the region. And things only got worse. Netanyahu is the architect of chaos. He may create a situation where it's irreversible. - He is the great example of a leader that lead his people to the wrong place. But this is the reality in which he will preserve his political power. And he know how to manipulate. Manipulate. He needs it in a way.

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.”