reSee.it - Related Video Feed

A partnership between Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Friends of Zion Museum led to an unprecedented visit, marking the first time Israel officially partnered with 1,000 strategic pastors to commission them as ambassadors to combat antisemitism and reach the youth of their generation. Dr. Mike Evans states that Israel's fight is not just on the battlefield, and that there is currently an ideological war that Israel's losing, so they need the evangelicals and the Zionists to fight an ideological war. One of the gathering's goals is to strengthen Christian support during a time of growing global antisemitism, with the message that the pulpit must speak louder than the propaganda. A speaker emphasizes that pastors should go to their pulpits to speak with clarity and boldness, pushing back on the antisemitism and bigotry directed toward Jewish people and toward the people of Israel. Another speaker notes that the pulpit has become quiet about these issues, and that cultural voices have spoken louder than pastors on these topics, making it motivating to return to the message of who Israel is to the Lord and to reaffirm Christians’ role in supporting and praying for Israel. There is a concern about a growing cancer within the evangelical movement in America, where people think Israel doesn’t matter and that nothing biblical supports the relationship to Israel, which is described as very dangerous. Ambassador Huckabee, a former pastor, warns of rising danger in the church, arguing that the idea that God will break His covenant or has broken His covenant with the Jewish people borders on blasphemy, because if God will break His covenant with the Jewish people, he questions what would prevent Him from breaking His covenant with Christians as well.

Speaker 0 states a personal stance toward people and principle. They begin, 'In my views, I like people, and I just feel that way.' They then reject performing a narrative about their wife's heritage, saying, 'And I'm not gonna play the game where I have to be like, oh, actually, my wife is part Jewish or whatever.' They reference a 'Final question. Play. I'm not gonna do that.' The remark concludes with, 'I think we should stand on principle.' The speaker emphasizes not altering a stance for perceived group identity, choosing to adhere to a stated set of beliefs instead of altering responses for appearances.

The speaker asserts that Britain is a country of migrants. They identify themselves as Jewish and note that some of their family arrived in Britain in the late nineteenth century. They specify that they are Sephardic on their mother's side.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the contested question of whether Jews count as white. The exchange centers on how race and ethnicity are classified and how those classifications change depending on who is doing the labeling and in what context. Speaker 0 begins by saying that the question of whether Jews count as white has been “an object of debate for quite a while,” and asserts that “We do. Okay.” This introduces the core tension: there is disagreement about the whiteness of Jews. Speaker 1 counters with a brief assertion that seems to push toward a universal or broad interpretation, saying “You … do,” and then adds that the determination “depends according to whom, and that's a pretty recent development,” suggesting that classifications have shifted recently and vary by perspective. Speaker 1 then characterizes Judaism in a provocative way, asking, “Judaism is agree that you are a white man?” which frames the issue as a question of how Judaism is perceived in terms of racial categories. Speaker 0 responds by framing the issue as contextual: “I mean, it depends on the context in which we're discussing it.” He identifies himself as a “man of Jewish ethnicity,” noting that this ethnicity is “sometimes grouped with white and sometimes not. I mean, that’s the more accurate way to put it.” This underscores the ambiguity and variability of classification: Jews can be grouped with whites in some contexts and with non-whites in others. Speaker 1 presses further, asking directly, “So you're not white at all?” Speaker 0 repeats the conditional language, emphasizing that it “depends who's doing the grouping and how.” He confirms that he has seen Jews grouped with white and also grouped with not white, and questions whether people are “pretending that doesn't exist,” acknowledging that the reality includes both classifications. He signals that the broader point he is addressing has a certain legitimacy in light of this complexity, but the conversation ends without a definitive conclusion, leaving the audience with the sense that Jewish whiteness is a contextual and contested category rather than a fixed identifier.

The speaker states their parents' family is Jewish with extended family in Israel, which affects them daily. While they don't describe themself as a Zionist, they understand, sympathize with, and support Zionism. They reiterate they wouldn't use the term to describe themself, but emphasize their family connection to Israel.

Israel has a right to exist and is a vital democracy. Amid rising anti-Semitism, some Jewish individuals may feel they can handle the situation alone, but I believe it's essential to oppose anti-Semitism regardless. It is wrong, unjust, and evil. Similarly, if my Catholic friends faced bigotry and felt they could manage it themselves, I would still stand against that bigotry because it is also wrong and unjust.

A Jewish speaker opposes Zionism, stating that it is not anti-Semitism to be against it. They share personal experiences of facing backlash for their beliefs. They explain that Zionism is a movement that started 150 years ago by Jews who were not practicing their religion and wanted a homeland. However, Judaism forbids having their own state. They highlight the historical support and acceptance Jews received from Muslim countries. The speaker criticizes the Zionist movement for disregarding the rights of Palestinians and accuses them of using PR tactics and political pressure to silence opposition. They emphasize their belief in coexistence with Muslims and express empathy for Palestinian suffering.

The speaker defines Zionism as someone who believes in a homeland for Jewish people, and adds, “My definition when I’ve looked at that in the dictionary is Israel first.” When asked, “It means Israel first?” the speaker confirms, “Yes.” The speaker notes that there is a negative connotation or incantation in many realms about Zionism and then raises a challenge: since Zionism denotes that it is Israel first, “can you possibly serve two masters? Meaning, can you serve England and Israel at the same time?” The speaker responds with a sharp interjection, “Shallow. Listen. Let me tell you something.” Addressing the possibility of conflict, the speaker states, “If there was a war tomorrow, which there will be, because I’ll probably start at the end of the session.” They continue, “If there was a war and it kicked off, I would be there on the front line fighting for Israel.”

The speaker shares personal experiences of being called derogatory names and receiving threats for defending pro-Palestinian views. They emphasize the importance of not treating the Jewish community as a monolithic group and highlight the historical support of Jews for oppressed communities. The speaker defends Jeremy Corbyn's solidarity with the oppressed and criticizes the weaponization of accusations of anti-Semitism. They argue that freedom of speech is being denied and that the media ignores left-wing Jews and scholars who challenge the definition of anti-Semitism. The speaker calls for support of independent media like Double Down News.

The speaker believes that Jews are influential worldwide because it is God's will. Despite being a small community compared to Americans, Jews are prominent in politics, with Trump and Biden's aides being Jewish. The speaker mentions various Jewish denominations and their historical influence in different countries.

The speaker discusses the changing landscape of free speech and the shift of Jewish people from the left to the right in politics. They mention that historically, Jews aligned with the left due to shared experiences of persecution and a belief in equality. However, they argue that the left has now embraced a woke ideology that focuses on identity groups and redistribution, which has made Jews feel like part of an oppressor class. As a result, many Jewish individuals are realizing that the left is no longer a welcoming space for them and are shifting towards the right. The speaker also mentions the importance of judging individuals based on character rather than skin color or ethnicity.

Opening, the speaker notes "Wearing a a shirt or a a button that says I'm a Zionist. What does a Zionist mean to you? What is a Zionist?" They define "a Zionist, someone believes in a homeland for Jewish people" and add, "I believe My definition when I've looked at that in the dictionary is is Israel first," followed by, "'It means Israel first." They acknowledge "there's there's a a negative in in incantation in a lot of realms about Zionism" and ask, "can you possibly serve two masters? Meaning, can you serve England and Israel at the same time?" The speaker concludes, "'If there was a war tomorrow, which there will be, because I'll probably start at the end of the session. If there was a war and it kicked off, I would be there on the front line fighting for Israel.'"

Speaker 0: In time, Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. And I think we're gonna be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe is not gonna be the monolithic societies that they once were in the last century. Speaker 1: Now, I think we have a moral and political and social and economic obligation to look after refugees. You can't you have three alternatives. Leave them on the beaches. Send them back to have their throats slit in Syria, or let them walk up to the Balkans into razor wire borders, or welcome them. Those are the only alternatives. Speaker 0: Jews are gonna be at the center of that. It's a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode and Jews will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role and without that transformation, Europe will not survive. Speaker 2: There are 65,000,000 displaced people in the world right now. Matthew, that number is larger than the population of The United Kingdom, and it's not getting any smaller. What we've seen here is that governments are absolutely feckless in attempting to broker peace agreements, be it Syria or anywhere else, which has created this. Speaker 3: Billionaire George Soros says he's investing $500,000,000 to start ups founded by refugees. Soros is responding to president Barack Obama's call to action initiative. That's a request for companies to help refugees and migrants. Speaker 4: And Norwegian society has a very a very short history with ethnic minorities at a scale. So there is a job to be done. So we do have rising antisemitism, and we have rising antisignism, and we have Islamophobia, and we have racism. So we have a lot to do. So we still have have a need of NGOs like the center against racism. Speaker 5: But then he dismissed out of hand what the Prime Minister is doing in relation to migration. Now, I happen to believe that people in this country don't want to pull the drawbridges up, actually. But they do want a fair system. They don't want a free fall. They don't like this sense that people can come here and take us for a ride. And the point, Evan, is this. That in other member states, they have a contributory system of social insurance. I've seen it and discussed it in different contexts. So that people are sort of working and paying their taxes and putting in before they have the right to take out. Speaker 6: The European Union was intentionally set up to give minority organizations influence on the management of Europe. Harry Truman read an article about Kalergi in 1945. He was so impressed that he adopted the Kalergi plan as US official policy as well. After 1965, the real demographic changes of European countries would be seen. Brock Schisholm, former director of the World Health Organization said, what people in all places have to do is to limit a birth rate and promote mixed marriages between different races. This aims to create a single race in the world which will be directed by a central authority. Speaker 7: Very clear that the Jews want to exterminate the European race and that the means to weakening the European race would be to dissolve all the European nations, destroy all their cultural heritage and their national traditions and replace that with the European Union and then to invite in Africans, Middle Easterners and Asians to dilute the blood of Europeans through miscegenation to the point where they became a degenerate mixed race.

Speaker 0 expresses support for Israel and the right of Israel to defend itself, but says they have to do this because they simply have no option if they are to survive as a country, and frankly, in many ways, as a race in that part of the world. Speaker 1 asks whether immigration represents a major threat to Britain from a demographic perspective, noting that in the last twenty years the white British population has declined from 87% to 74%, and asks if that is a concern. Speaker 0回答: No. No. Speaker 1 reiterates the claim of rapid demographic change, stating that the fastest and most rapid decline of the white British population ever experienced in British history has occurred in a tiny short period of time, and that majority cities that were once 90% white British are now majority ethnic minorities, citing London, Leicester, and Birmingham, and asks why this isn’t a concern of Speaker 0. Speaker 0 responds: But they're not unrecognizable as being English because of skin color. They're unrecognizable because of culture. He adds that he genuinely thinks the British are the most open minded, most accepting people.

The speaker argues that American Jews are wrestling with a category they inherited from our European ancestors about 250 years ago. As Jews moved into modern nation-states and pursued secular jobs and secular education, they reimagined Judaism to fit in. Judaism was transformed into something like a Protestant-style religion: a framework that worked well for a long period, enabling Jews to participate in broader society. The speaker emphasizes that Jews are not merely a religion, nor are we a race or ethnicity. Instead, Jews are a nation, civilization, tribe, peoplehood, and above all, a family. Therefore, a young person in America who thinks Judaism is simply a Protestant religion risks viewing the 7,000,000 Jews in Israel as merely co-religionists. If that is the lens, the natural question becomes: what do you owe to them? It would be like telling a mainline, very progressive Protestant in Berkeley, California that they must care about a Pentecostal in Brazil. In that framing, it doesn’t make sense, because it’s a category error. The speaker clarifies that the people in Israel are not merely co-religionists; they are siblings. The danger lies in thinking of Israel's Jewish population primarily through the lens of shared religious practice. When that happens, there is a risk of sliding into anti-Zionism, because the fundamental, personal connection to Israel—as siblings within a broader Jewish family—gets diminished or lost if Israel is reduced to a subset of co-religionists who share a particular religious outlook or social-justice framework. Key contrasts highlighted include the historical adaptation that treated Judaism as a Protestant-style religion to fit into secular, modern-state life, versus the present understanding that Jewish identity encompasses nationhood, civilization, and family ties. The speaker suggests that recognizing Israel as part of a family, not just a co-religionist community, is essential to maintaining connections that are not solely defined by theological agreement or social-justice alignment but by a broader shared Jewish peoplehood.

The speaker discusses the concept of Jews as an ethnoreligion, emphasizing their ethnic identity and perceived persecution. They suggest that Jews prioritize their survival and influence various aspects of society to ensure it. The conversation also touches on anti-Zionist Jews and their impact on liberal, multicultural environments for safety. The discussion expands beyond religious and political critiques to include Jews' involvement in big tech and societal changes.

The speaker identifies as a Gentile and not Jewish, sharing his 23andMe results: “I’m hopelessly Gentile. I am like, I am white trash.” He explains he is “Scottish and Irish” and that his love for the Jewish people grew after entering a relationship with Jesus Christ and studying the Bible. He emphasizes that “everything we have came through the Jewish people,” including the Bible and the Messiah, stating, “My Bible has come through the Jewish people. My Messiah came through the Jewish people.” He recalls being invited to speak at the Museum of Tolerance after a horrible attack on Israel, telling a Jewish audience that his material and faith trace back to the Jewish people. He warns, “Woe to the person who seeks to destroy Israel or the Jewish people,” citing God’s promise: “I will bless those that bless you, and I will curse those that curse you.” The speaker asserts that a key reason God has blessed the United States of America is because the country has stood by Israel and the Jewish people, and that this stance should continue in the future. He concludes by tying this belief to voting, saying, “When it comes to casting your vote for the next president, I’m one of the things that I’m gonna look for is a president that understands this principle, and will stand behind Israel in her future.”

The speaker states they sympathize with and support Zionism, noting their parents' family is Jewish with extended family in Israel. While they don't describe themselves as a Zionist, they understand and sympathize with it due to their family connection. The speaker describes their leadership style as Director of Public Prosecutions, where successes were celebrated collectively, but they took responsibility for failures. They state this is how they would lead the Labour Party, with the leader taking responsibility when things go wrong. They express pride in this leadership approach during their five years as Director of Public Prosecutions.

I identify as Jewish and have personally faced antisemitism as a member of a minority group. Judaism is an ethno-religion, meaning that even though I am an atheist, I still consider myself Jewish due to my ethnicity. Contrary to popular belief, Jews are not considered white. This may disappoint some who enjoy engaging in discussions about oppression. While the Nazis did not consider us white enough, we are often included in discussions about race, where white people are typically portrayed as the villains.

The speaker argues that the Trump administration represents the best they’ve seen, and that ten years after the Trump movement and Brexit, their side is in power, with hopes for JD Vance and Marco Rubio to hold leadership for many years. They note that shortly after Trump took office, a drumbeat labeled him as dangerous or controlled, and criticize the tendency to treat those in government as if their duties were the same as those in opposition. They reflect on being Jewish within the nationalist movement, describing it as easy and rewarding for years, especially defending against accusations of anti-Semitism by arguing that critics hadn’t engaged with their speakers or understood the context. That ease has diminished recently, as they observe deeper slander of Jews on the right over the past year and a half. The speaker notes a troubling shift among some right-wing figures who used to advocate for a Jewish-Christian alliance to save America, but now, for reasons they don’t fully understand, advocate praising the Muslim Brotherhood, Islam, and the Quran, while portraying Jews as a major problem. The speaker hopes this will pass and urges a rethink of the relationship between Jews and Christians, asking for mutual honor and discussion rather than hostile accusations, which could include medieval-style accusations against Jews. They reiterate that the coalition was built by Donald Trump and is broad enough to win future elections, but warn that driving coalition members away or dishonoring them risks harming JD Vance’s prospects, Rubio’s prospects, and America’s prospects. Ultimately, the speaker states that there is a choice to be made: if members of the coalition continue to attack and alienate others, they undermine the chances of maintaining the coalition’s gains and electoral success.

A Jewish individual speaks out against Zionism, stating that it is not anti-Semitism to oppose it. They mention facing backlash and vandalism for their beliefs. They explain that Zionism is a movement that started 150 years ago by Jews who were disconnected from their religion and sought a homeland. However, Judaism forbids the establishment of a Jewish state, as Jews are meant to be loyal citizens in every country they reside. They highlight the historical support and acceptance Jews received from Muslim countries. They criticize the Zionist movement for disregarding the rights of Palestinians and accuse them of using PR tactics to silence opposition. They express solidarity with Palestinians and hope for a world that recognizes the truth.

The conversation centers on the role of identity politics and how individuals should be judged. The participants oppose broad, collective guilt and emphasize individual worth. Speaker 0 argues against the idea that “all Jews are guilty, or all anybody is guilty of anything,” calling that line of thinking untrue and noting that “God created every person as an individual, not as a group.” They describe this kind of broad attribution as identity politics and push the principle that people should be judged as individuals, with God judging each person accordingly. Speaker 1, identifying as Catholic, expresses strong agreement with the stance on universal love, saying, “I love all people.” They emphasize that, even for those who don’t like them, they must recognize and be capable of loving them, asserting that “We’re required to” do so. However, Speaker 1 offers a substantive disagreement: they contend that neoconservatism and Israel have a connection to Jewishness, asserting that “the state of Israel and the neocons are deeply motivated by that ethnic identity, and their allegiance to Israel proceeds from that.” Speaker 0 counters by labeling the line of thought as belonging to identity politics, comparing it to what they see in Black Lives Matter. They maintain that the objection is not about denying individual differences, but about applying a blanket principle to everyone. Speaker 1 responds that they would never say that all individuals are defined that way, signaling a disagreement about how the claim should be interpreted or applied. The exchange cycles back to the fundamental principle: Speaker 0 reiterates that people should be judged as individuals “by what we do,” and that “God will judge every one of us in that way,” underscoring the expectation that judgments should be individual rather than group-based. Speaker 1 maintains their view that Jewish identity and allegiance can influence political or ideological loyalties, while also affirming a personal commitment to loving all people. The dialogue highlights the tension between recognizing universal equality and acknowledging perceived connections between ethnic/religious identity and political motives.

Speaker 0 describes the backlash: "The behavior by a lot, both privately and publicly, are pushing people like you and me away." He adds: "I am learning biblical Hebrew and writing a book on the Shabbat. I honor the Shabbat, literally the Jewish Sabbath. I visit Israel and fight for it." He asserts identity and support: "Yes. I'm an American citizen." "Yes. I want Israel to win." "But my moral character is now being put into question." He emphasizes the impact of online discourse: "Well, you and I believe that we're Americans and Americans first, period. End of story. We are citizens of this nation." He cites: "And the thing about Epstein is just so bizarre. I don't know who he was an agent for. It might have been Israel or an asset, or it might have been nobody, but we're allowed to speculate about that. It's like just some rule. You can't go there when it comes to Israel." He concludes with: "I love Israel."

The speaker asserts that the Trump administration was “the best administration I’ve ever seen,” noting it’s ten years after the Trump movement and Brexit, and that their side is in power. They express willingness for a long political run, saying they’d be happy if JD Vance could be president for eight years and Marco Rubio for another eight, with continued involvement. They remark that after Trump, the drumbeat of opposition began quickly, accusing him of starting World War III or being controlled, and they stress that those in government have different responsibilities from those in opposition. They ask how JD Vance can win the next election if the group outside has spent four years tearing each other apart. The speaker then addresses being Jewish within the NatCon movement. They state they’ve never done this before and are not particularly comfortable with it. They reflect that it was easy and great to be a leader in the nationalist movement and Jewish until about a year and a half ago, because whenever left-leaning Jews or others accused their speakers of antisemitism, the speaker could defend them, arguing people hadn’t spoken to the person, hadn’t read full statements, and were taking a sentence out of context. They found it fun and rewarding to defend against what they viewed as false, ridiculous antisemitism accusations, and it made them popular. Now, they say, it’s not that easy anymore. They acknowledge that criticism of Israel is fine as a policy discussion, but they’ve been struck by the “depth of the slander of Jews as a people” online over the last year and a half, and say they didn’t expect this on the right. They observe a transition among some on the right—people they once admired and still admire in part—who now believe that praising the Muslim Brotherhood, Islam, and the Quran is appropriate, and that Jews are a big problem. They express hope this will pass and call for reconsidering the relationship between Jews and Christians, proposing a mutual discussion and honor if possible, rather than a vile stream of accusations about Jews’ actions toward Christians in the Middle Ages. Finally, they stress that the coalition was built by Donald Trump and is broad enough to win the next election and future ones. They warn that driving coalition members out, dishonoring them, or keeping them dishonored will lead to loss: it would destroy Vance’s prospects, Rubio’s prospects, and America’s prospects. The speaker presents a choice: preserve the coalition or risk undermining it.

The speaker believes that Jews are influential worldwide because it is God's will. They mention the Torah as proof, stating that Jews will always stand out in every nation. Despite being a small community compared to Americans, Jews are prominent in various fields like politics, with examples given of Jewish involvement with Trump, Biden, and Obama. The speaker highlights the historical pattern of Jewish influence in different countries and urges against hatred.