reSee.it - Related Video Feed

We have a Hamas office here, despite Hamas's designation as a terror organization by the US government. The reason for this office dates back to when it was first established with full transparency, consultation, and at the request of the US. The US asked us to open channels with Hamas and establish a communication channel, similar to what was done with the Taliban. Having a presence and engaging in dialogue doesn't imply endorsement or support of their ideas. The office was meant to facilitate peace, stabilize the region, and serve that purpose.

In India, there is concern about the support for Hamas terrorists and the justification of their attacks. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board released a statement supporting Hamas and calling their actions a natural response. The SDPI, a political wing of the banned terrorist organization PFI, is openly supporting Hamas and organizing meetings in solidarity with Palestinians. Those who question this support are labeled as communal bigots. This support for Islamist terror goes beyond appeasement and needs to be addressed with zero tolerance. India does not view terrorism as a freedom movement.

Hamas is a designated terrorist organization, not an ally. The focus is on Israel's conduct in minimizing civilian casualties during military operations against Hamas, who hides among civilians. The US will continue to urge Israel to reduce harm to civilians. The discussion is cut short due to time constraints.

You don't rape Jewish women, decapitate Jewish babies, and execute Jewish men, and think you're gonna get away for it. You're not gonna get away. As Israel has demonstrated, you're gonna die for it. And that's exactly what you deserve. And that's my view. The way you treat other human beings, these are subhuman monsters. That's what they are. They're called terrorists. It doesn't even seem to matter anymore. Oh, Hamas. Sounds like a food. Oh, man, pass the Hamas. No, I don't think so. No other country in the world, none, is gonna tell Israel what to do, how to defend itself and its people. Period.

Some individuals believe Hamas are freedom fighters, while others acknowledge their classification as a prescribed terrorist organization in the UK. One person stated the UK government made the wrong decision in classifying Hamas as such. Another stated that Israel, not Hamas, is the terrorist. One person's initial reaction to the October 7th invasion of Israel by Hamas was that it showed resistance against the occupation of Palestinians and was a beacon of hope. Another person expressed disgust at the unverified stories of 40 beheaded babies. One person stated that the continued existence of Israel is a war crime. One person stated they don't believe Hamas was responsible for the invasion and felt unqualified to comment. Another stated they haven't seen anything to prove the invasion actually happened or is correct. One person stated Hamas are freedom fighters fighting for the right to their land and self-defense, and are not terrorists.

Hamas invaded Israel on October 7th. Speaker 1 admits to not being well-informed about the situation and feels unqualified to comment. They express uncertainty about the accuracy of the information they have seen.

We are not targeting anyone in Gaza except civilians. Hamas is a terrorist organization, acting cynically.

The speaker discusses the spread of a narrative justifying Hamas as a nation defending itself, despite its terrorist activities. They emphasize the need to debunk this narrative and focus on the facts. They also mention the facilitation and intelligence failure that allowed Hamas to commit atrocities. The speaker warns against glorifying terrorism and calls for accountability. Another speaker expresses frustration with those promoting terrorism and using derogatory language towards Jews. They urge others to disassociate from this crowd.

We are not targeting anyone else in Gaza but civilians. Hamas is a terrorist organization. We are the victims, not the aggressors. There is no moral equivalence.

The US labels Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, but this term is often used by powerful nations to condemn violence they disagree with. The US supported Israel's invasions and occupation of Southern Lebanon, and Hezbollah played a key role in driving them out. This is why they are considered terrorists. The United States and Europe have the ability to manipulate the narrative, making it seem like Hamas's policies are the problem, rather than the more extreme policies of the US and Israel. It's important to note that in their case, actions speak louder than words.

Speaker 1, a 22-year-old Palestinian named Esther Karam, proudly supports Hamas and criticizes those she perceives as white supremacists. She questions the use of terms like "terrorist" and asks if people are aware of the suffering Palestinians have endured for 75 years. Speaker 0 mentions that several governments recognize Hamas as terrorists and discusses recent events in Gaza. Speaker 1 accuses white reporters of bias and questions the motives behind their reporting. The conversation becomes heated, with Speaker 1 bringing up race and religion. Speaker 0 expresses confusion and Speaker 1 ends by expressing her support for Palestine and making a hateful remark.

I fully support the right of self-defense, whether it's in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, the United States, or Britain. If someone from another country came and threatened my land and family, I would defend my country too. However, I won't ignore the fact that the United States government is the biggest terrorist on the planet. Hamas doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist, which reminds me of Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress rejecting apartheid. For Israel to be a true partner in peace, it needs to abandon its ideology of Zionism and treat all people equally. Only then can we expect Hamas to acknowledge Israel. Until then, I see no difference between Hamas and Nelson Mandela's stance on apartheid.

The speaker is asked if they support Hamas killing 700 Israelis, including children, and kidnapping children. They respond by saying that the question is framed to make them look bad. They clarify that they do not support the United States, but they believe that the Israeli government is the real terrorist. The speaker is then asked a yes or no question about supporting the 700, but their response is not provided in the transcript.

The speaker criticizes the Hamas Charter, comparing it to conspiracy theories found on far-right platforms like 4chan. They argue that Hamas should be seen as a far-right fascist organization, but the left struggles to condemn it due to their association of the Palestinian cause with anti-imperialism. This confusion prevents them from acknowledging Hamas as a fascistic group.

Some individuals interviewed believe Hamas are freedom fighters, not terrorists, and are resisting occupation and fighting for their land. One person called the Hamas invasion of Israel on October 7th "a beacon of hope." Another stated the continued existence of Israel is a war crime. One interviewee expressed doubt that Hamas was responsible for the invasion and admitted to needing more information to comment. Another found the unverified reporting of "40 beheaded babies" disgusting.

Speaker 0 claims that Hamas is not a terrorist group, but a resistance that has been fighting against colonialism, occupation, and violence for 75 years. Speaker 1 questions if Canada is also a colonialist country. Speaker 0 insists that everything Hamas does is justified and denies allegations of beheaded babies, stating that it was fake news. Speaker 1 mentions the 1300 deaths, but Speaker 0 dismisses it as lacking evidence. Speaker 0 argues that Hamas, as a Muslim group, would not commit such acts as it goes against Islam. They also mention Israeli women who claim that Hamas fighters treated them respectfully and even asked for a banana to eat.

Hamas deserves applause for their actions against field hands who threatened them. The speaker supports this and believes the recent events were not terrorism, but rather freedom fighters fighting for freedom. They emphasize that none of the people who died were innocent.

Hamas has committed attacks prior to October 7, killing thousands of Israelis and hundreds of Palestinians, sabotaging the peace process. Hamas is more than a terrorist organization; it is a religious, ideological movement waging a holy war against a race, not a national resistance movement to liberate Palestine. Hamas does not believe in political borders, but wants a global state. Supporting pro-Palestine groups gives support to a savage group that committed genocide against Jewish communities. Having lived with Hamas members in prison for 27 months, the speaker witnessed them torturing Palestinians. The speaker believes October 7 could be the worst crime of modern day. Hamas is a radical religious movement with global ambition that does not value human life and does not believe in democracy. Israel, in contrast, is a democratic nation that has extended its hand to the region for peace for over 70 years. Since 1948, Arab nations have tried to annihilate Israel. 95% of wars between Arabs and Israel were initiated by Arab countries. On October 7, Israel suffered genocide, not just a terrorist attack.

I find it ironic that those defending Hamas online are the ones most likely to be targeted by them. They claim to be freedom fighters, fighting for their land, while I fight for my right to express myself. It's like being in a toxic relationship. I understand you may have a different perspective, but I can't empathize with someone who kidnaps, murders, and commits horrific acts. Just because someone had a difficult childhood doesn't mean I sympathize with them. If you want a free Palestine, free it from... [transcript ends]

Speaker 0 claims that Hamas is not a terrorist group, but a resistance that has been fighting against colonialism, occupation, murder, rape, and the mistreatment of children and women for 75 years. Speaker 1 questions if Canada is also a colonialist country. Speaker 0 insists that everything Hamas does is justified, including recent events. Speaker 1 mentions children being murdered and babies being beheaded, but Speaker 0 dismisses it as fake news. Speaker 0 argues that Hamas, as a Muslim group, would never commit such acts as it goes against Islam. Speaker 0 also mentions Israeli women who claim that Hamas members treated them respectfully and even asked for a banana to eat.

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

Jonathan (Speaker 0) and Michael (Speaker 2) along with Jonathan Conricus (Speaker 1) discuss the Australia Hanukkah attack, antisemitism, and the political context surrounding Palestinian statehood and Islamist extremism. They also touch on free speech, protests, and potential international implications. - Jonathan’s initial reaction to the Australian shooting: He was not surprised, framing it as part of a broader pattern he terms “globalize the Intifada.” He cites experiences in Australia, including Bondi Beach visits and conversations with the Jewish community, who he says feel betrayed by legislators and exposed by law enforcement. He argues the atmosphere in Australia has allowed antisemitic attacks, with radicals allowed to shout antisemitic slogans and attack synagogues. He accuses the Australian government of being weak and cowed, quick to side with Hamas and Palestinians while demonizing Israel, and contends this climate enabled violence against 2,000 Australian Jews celebrating Hanukkah. He calls for full support and protection for Jews in Australia and for leadership to change its stance toward global affairs. - Netanyahu connection and limiting principle: Michael notes Netanyahu’s August letter to Australian Prime Minister Albanese warning that support for a Palestinian state fuels antisemitic violence and benefits Hamas. Conricus is asked about a limiting principle: could endorsing Palestinian statehood by various figures (Ehud Barak, the UN Security Council’s Oslo-era blueprint, etc.) be linked to such attacks, potentially implicating many figures including Donald Trump? Conricus responds that the situation in Australia goes beyond a mere recognition of a Palestinian state and highlights the disquiet in Israel across political spectrum about linking Israel’s actions to global support for Palestinian statehood, especially after October 7 atrocities. - Protests and incitement: Jonathan argues the protests in Australia, including chants like “gas the Jews,” reflect incitement and a broader systemic failure by authorities who allowed Hamas supporters to dominate public spaces and harass Jews. He recounts encounters with Hamas supporters in Melbourne and claims police and local government enabled harassment against Jews, including demands Jews remove kippahs to avoid incitement. He says hate crimes against synagogues have gone unsolved and that this atmosphere of violence and antisemitism needs to change. - Pro-Palestinian vs pro-Hamas distinction: Michael asks where to draw the line between pro-Palestinian and pro-Hamas protesters. Conricus argues the distinction is artificial and notes that polls show Hamas is the most popular Palestinian political group, suggesting that many demonstrators imply support for Hamas even if they do not explicitly say so. He believes the dominant sentiment among protesters on October 7-8 was supportive of Hamas, even if framed as pro-Palestinian nationalism. He also mentions paid protesters, particularly in US/UK campus contexts, but emphasizes ideologically driven protesters. - Free speech and incitement: Michael insists that if protests include chants and actions that incite violence, this becomes a free-speech issue, citing First Amendment protections in the US and contrasting with other countries. Jonathan counters that incitement can justify restriction when it explicitly calls for violence against a protected group, noting that “gas the Jews” crosses lines beyond free speech, and criticizes Australian authorities’ tolerance of violent incitement. - Chronology and retaliation: The participants discuss the October 7 Hamas attack and Israel’s subsequent response. Jonathan clarifies that Hamas conducted an unprecedented, unprovoked attack killing 1,200 Israelis, with later identification of missing and abducted individuals. He describes Israel’s border closure and subsequent major offensive in Gaza. Michael points out debates around whether attackers’ motives included broader geopolitical narratives, while Jonathan underscores the gravity and scale of the October 7 killings and the need to acknowledge the initial atrocity. - Islam and Western integration: Jonathan addresses Islam as a monotheistic faith with nearly 2 billion followers, expressing no issue with Islam as a religion but concern about Islamist ideology and an imperialistic mindset. He cites Sweden’s immigration policy as an example of perceived societal strain and argues for cautions about cultural integration, border policies, and governance standards in Western societies. - Acknowledgment of individual bravery: They remark on Ahmed Ben Ahmed, a Muslim shop owner who helped defend Jews during the Australian attack, acknowledging his bravery and suggesting he should be recognized for valor. - Iran, Israel, and alleged blame: The discussion covers claims about Iran or Israel behind the attack. Michael asserts there is no evidence linking Mossad or Iran to the attack, while Jonathan suggests Iranian involvement is possible but not proven, noting Iranian propaganda and the potential for blowback, while maintaining that the attackers’ exact affiliations remain unclear. They note Iranian condemnation of the attacks, with skepticism about Iranian statements.

Hamas is a designated terrorist organization, not an ally. The focus should be on how to use leverage over Israel to prevent civilian deaths. Israel faces challenges in conducting military operations against an enemy that hides among civilians. Efforts will be made to minimize civilian casualties while acknowledging Israel's responsibility. The discussion will move on due to time constraints.

Hamas are evil people, and the idea of them controlling territory is unfathomable. Our hearts break for the families of the deceased, and the return of remains is a sacred thing. Hamas is weaker than before but still a threat and cannot be allowed to reconstitute. As long as Hamas is in Gaza, there will be no peace, and they must be eliminated. No country can coexist with a group whose purpose is destruction and atrocities. The President has a plan for Gaza's reconstruction, which involves removing people from the area to allow construction, but regional partners disagree. If they don't like the President's plan, they should propose a better one. The fundamental challenge is determining who will govern Gaza and how to eliminate Hamas.

Hamas deserves applause for their actions, as they encountered field hands in a house with a knife. I was late to hear the news, but I commend their efforts. In America, it is unfortunate that yesterday's events were labeled as terrorism, when in reality, they were freedom fighters fighting for freedom. It is important to note that none of the individuals who died were innocent. It is our responsibility.