reSee.it - Related Video Feed

To restore balance between the US and Israel and sane public conversation, the speaker says we must get our theology right. This message is aimed at Christians—the largest group of Israel supporters in the US—whose view is colored by a Christian heresy: that God prefers some people based on DNA. The chosen people, he argues, are 'the people who choose Jesus' and that is the universal Christian message. He cites Lindsey Graham and others, calling this 'not Christianity' and 'heresy.' Examples: 'Israel is our friend. They're the most reliable friend we have in the Mideast.' 'This is not a hard choice if you're an American.' 'If America pulls the plug on Israel, god will pull the plug on us.' 'God will kill you if you don't support Bibi Netanyahu.' He contends this uses God as a weapon, and 'the killing of the innocent' is forbidden; 'that person is committing heresy.'

One speaker recounts that he did not like Bibi Netanyahu, describing Netanyahu as a destructive force and saying he was appalled by what was happening in Gaza, and that Netanyahu was using the United States to prosecute wars for the benefit of his country, which he called shameful and embarrassing and bad for the United States, a view he resented. He also notes that he didn’t hate Netanyahu. After that speech, there was a sharp backlash against Charlie Kirk and, to a lesser extent, the speaker, with Kirk having about $100 million in donors and being heavily dependent on them because his project was nonprofit. They went after him and tormented him, while a small, very intense group offended by the speech tormented Charlie Kirk until the day he died.

Speaker 0 recalls watching Charlie Kirk’s memorial in Malaysia and an “extremely coordinated onslaught” by high-level actors who claimed the passage was “not just offensive, but was one of the worst blood libels ever uttered in a public setting since World War two” and that it “intended to imply that Israel was behind the killing of Charlie Kirk.” Speaker 1 frames the passage as the Christian gospel: “Ultimately, he was a Christian evangelist” who “tells the truth about the people in power” and that “they hate it and they become obsessed with making him stop”—“they end up torturing him to death to kill him, and then... it becomes the world's biggest religion.” He says he did not intend to attack Jews, criticizes antisemitism and Zionism for seeing everything as about Jews, calling that attitude “sick” and “bad for this country,” and urges treating Israel as a country with overlapping interests. He cites ADL pressure and stresses repentance in the Christian message.

Speaker warns about actions in Gaza, insisting: 'I gotta be careful the way I say this.' He asserts: 'To they're gonna try to ethnically cleanse Gaza.' He continues, 'I mean, that that's and I'm I don't use that term lightly. Okay?' He states, 'They're talking about basically removing 2,500,000 people from there.' After a pause, he adds: 'Okay?' and says, 'And, honestly, they have a mandate to go seek justice and revenge. They do.' He closes by referencing the idea that 'they need to have a true truce or a peace treaty, that's morally after you see women and children be burned alive and dragged to the streets.'

"Just go to Israel and prostitute yourself supporting a genocidal regime." "that is killing over 400,000 Palestinians have been murdered, have been genocide." "Israel can't starve these Palestinians to death without the support of the US government." "It's Republican Christians. Republican Christian conservatives." "How about loving these Palestinians? How about loving these children that are starving to death?" "Okay? Just shut your mouth about Palestine, Gaza. Stop making jokes about starving children" "the last remaining church that was in Gaza was destroyed by the IDF, and three Christian children were killed by that." "There's no religion on earth that hates Jesus Christ except Judaism." "And that's the one religion you Christians will love so much and pray so much for and support even when they do the most unchristian genocidal things."

Speaker 0 describes repeated harassment: spitting in front of and behind him, spitting at him, saying bad words about Jesus, throwing stones through their windows, hate graffiti, and frequent death threats to Christians. He emphasizes that this was not a singular experience—“it happened again and again.” Speaker 1 argues that religious leaders must educate people toward tolerance, and that the government through the police must do their job to grant all citizens the right to live safely and in peace. Speaker 0 adds that he expects more from official Israel, and wants a very clear stance from official Israel, from the police, and from security, stating, “we have a problem. And this problem is called Christian hate from Jewish extremists. We have to face that problem.”

To restore balance between the United States and Israel, the speaker says we must get our theology right. This is not a message aimed at Israelis or Jews; it targets Christians, the largest group of Israel supporters in the United States. He calls the belief that God favors some people by DNA 'the oldest of the Christian heresies' and says, 'The chosen people are people who choose Jesus.' He declares, 'That is not Christianity. It is heresy.' He warns that if America pulls the plug on Israel, god will pull the plug on us, and, 'God will kill you if you don't support Bibi Netanyahu.' He argues that 'The Christian message is universal' and that, 'If you find anyone leveraging the message of Jesus to justify the killing of innocents, that person is committing heresy.'

The discussion centers on the way lawmakers reference religion in foreign policy and whether that approach is effective. Speaker 0 asks the audience how many think a respected lawmaker like Ted Cruz uses the Bible to justify aid to Israel, even if he doesn’t know the verse, and whether that is the best approach. Speaker 1 responds by referencing Ted Cruz’s Genesis twelve three, and notes that many find that off-putting when contrasted with the New Testament, specifically Paul’s writings about the new flesh not being the same as the people in the old covenant. Speaker 1 asks, “Yes. Romans nine?” and agrees with the sentiment. Speaker 0 then asks Speaker 1 if they are Catholic, to which Speaker 1 replies that they are converting Catholic from Judaism, revealing that they are ethnically Jewish. The exchange confirms Speaker 1’s Jewish ethnicity. Speaker 0 brings up concerns about APAC, asking if Speaker 1 has concerns about APAC. Speaker 1 confirms that they do. Speaker 0 notes that some people tell them that criticizing APAC equates to being anti-Semitic, asking whether this is true. Speaker 1 calls that notion ridiculous and says it’s great to have concern for one’s country. The conversation shifts to APAC’s influence. Speaker 0 presents a characterization (as a possible summary of Speaker 1’s view) that APAC represents a form of prioritization that cuts in line, away from the American people. Speaker 0 asks whether this is a fair summary. Speaker 1 answers affirmatively, “100%.” Finally, they articulate the core idea: the public votes and are citizens, but a separate group is described as receiving higher priority for whatever reasons. Speaker 1’s agreement underscores a shared concern that APAC’s influence creates a prioritization that bypasses the ordinary American electorate.

Speaker 0 delivers a heated, inflammatory statement directed at Jesus, Christians, and Israeli Jews. He says, 'You and you fucking Jesus could kiss my ass. Okay? We killed Jesus.' He adds, 'We brought All that Christians hold sacred and holy, Israeli Jews, whom American taxpayers support, spit on, trash, and defile.' The delivery is aggressive and provocative, linking religious content with political accusation and targeting the described group. The excerpt presents a confrontational, provocative address that asserts destruction of religious symbols and assigns collective blame to a named group. Tone is hostile and accusatory. The speaker frames a political funding claim within a religious insult.

"If Bibi Netanyahu, if he does something I don't like and if I criticize it, am I, like, a bad Christian? Absolutely not." "What I find strange is that we're able to criticize the American government sometimes in the Christian world with more freedom than the Israeli government." "To be pro Israel means you believe in the nation of Israel Mhmm. Not necessarily the government of Israel." "When you when Joe Biden was president, you and I were what we loved America, but we detested our government. And those two those two things beautifully coexisted." "Exactly. And what they don't want is they don't wanna be called bad Christians Mhmm." "If they challenge a foreign government, which is what happens so often. Right. Like you're a bad Christian if you have a question about a foreign government." "Right. That creates backlash that I don't think people understand."

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

The speaker states their love for Jews and Israel has nothing to do with the question of whether people are killing or murdering a hundred children a day. Another person calls the speaker a terrorist.

I recently returned from Israel and faced backlash for comments taken out of context on my show. I clarified that I don't support Nazi beliefs and prefer focusing on facts. I criticize Israel for apologizing and explain my support for embracing Christianity and Trump. I advocate for unity against radical Islam's persecution of Christians and Jews. Visit rebelisrael.com for more videos.

"If Bibi Netanyahu, if he does something I don't like and if I criticize it, am I, like, a bad Christian? Absolutely not." "What I find strange is that we're able to criticize the American government sometimes in the Christian world with more freedom than the Israeli government." "To be pro Israel means you believe in the nation of Israel Mhmm. Not necessarily the government of Israel." "When you when Joe Biden was president, you and I were what we loved America, but we detested our government." "You never you never once said, hey, I'm I'm out on America. On America's right." "And what they don't want is they don't wanna be called bad Christians Mhmm." "If they challenge a foreign government, which is what happens so often. Right. Like you're a bad Christian if you have a question about a foreign government."

I really pushed hard for this meeting and called a lot of people who know him and were in regular contact with him. I went to see some of those people directly. Please, can you help me get a sit down for five minutes with Benjamin Netanyahu? I probably called or met with six, seven, eight, maybe more people on this question. People in official capacities, people in the Israeli government. I know a number of people in the Israeli government, people in Israel, a friend of mine in California who knows him. I really, really tried. And I did so for two reasons. One, because there was a threat to my family. The Israeli government and Netanyahu himself tried to punish two members of my family. I won’t be more specific, but actually punished two members of my family because he, as he has said in public many times, believes in blood guilt. Amalek, you know, when someone commits a crime against you, you punish not just him, but his family, his bloodline. There’s no idea that’s less Western than that, more anti Christian than that. Christians reject that. Netanyahu doesn’t. That’s why he’s talking about Amalek, and he was going after my family, literally. So I felt very threatened by that. But, moreover, I think it’s bad for my country to have people using that kind of language, round them up, bring them to the camps, gas chambers, Nazis, antisemitism. It scares the heck out of people. It makes people crazy and hysterical. And certainly in my case, none of that is true. I hate collective punishment. I hate attacking people on the basis of their bloodline. I hate antisemitism and anti white racism and all of this or any kind of racism, period. And I’ve said that a lot. So using that kind of language against someone who is not fundamentally your enemy, just, in my case, I want Christians in areas controlled by Israel to be treated with dignity, to have rights. And I don’t want the US government involved in a war, a regime change war with Iran. Those are my priorities and I’ve said them out loud. I have no secret agenda.

Charlie consistently asserted that Jew hate is brainwrought. He emphasized this point firmly, noting that he and the speaker have visited Israel twice together, and expressing that walking where their Lord walked and seeing the Bible come to life in technicolor makes hatred toward the place or the Jewish people incomprehensible. The speaker counters by saying that hatred arises from people who cling to conspiracy theories, which he describes as sick and something that needs to stop. He asserts a shared humanity by stating that no one is perfect—no Christian, no Jew, no Muslim. Humans are broken and sinful and in need of a lord and savior. He then underscores the importance of giving one’s life to the Lord. Once fully surrendered to the Lord, he claims that there is “no room in your heart for hate.” He expresses sorrow for the listener’s daughter and offers a prayer that the tragedy will be extinguished in the world. Despite such sorrow, he notes that we are living in “enemy occupied territory,” and that daily we must guard our minds and hearts. The recommended guard is reading God’s word. Finally, he insists that the Old Testament and the New Testament cannot be separated; they are inseparable in their message and significance.

Speaker 0 centers the discussion on “why is Israel killing Christians,” arguing that Americans and Christians fund Israel and the IDF, and that Christians’ sites are blocked or attacked. He notes Hamas may have Christian members and points out a paradox about secular groups like Fatah having Christian support, asking for a coherent explanation for why Christians are being killed in a conflict not clearly about Christianity. He claims “Hamas was funded by Israel to some extent” and distinguishes religious versus political motivations, suggesting a purely religious motive would foreclose Christian accomplices. He defines terrorism as “the act of murdering the innocent” and says “If you murder the innocent, you are engaged in terrorism.” He argues Israel is not the litmus test; the focus should be on one’s own country, and that “the worst thing you can do is punish the innocent.”

You should be deeply affected by the situation in Gaza. If you're not, it reflects a serious issue with your humanity. As Christians, we must be outraged by the genocide and the misuse of the Bible to justify it; failing to label it as genocide is a moral failure. Some churches have not even called for a ceasefire, and I feel sorry for them. The Palestinian people will endure and rise again from this devastation, as we always have. However, those complicit in this situation will struggle to recover. Your expressions of shock and regret after the genocide will not change anything, and we will not accept apologies after such atrocities.

I want to address who pro-Zionists are and clarify some common misconceptions. Being pro-Israel isn't about being anti-Jewish, as Jesus himself was Jewish. However, the New Testament indicates that the nation of Israel is no longer God's chosen people; that title now belongs to the church. True Jews are those who follow the Lord's laws and ethics in their hearts, not just outwardly. In fact, those who reject Jesus are like the sons of Hagar, not of Sarah. There's neither Jew nor Gentile, but Christ, and Christ's kingdom doesn't favor any human government, and we shouldn't prioritize any nation over Christ. When we see children being killed, whether Israeli or Palestinian, it breaks Jesus' heart. We should be pro-Jesus and his kingdom and remember our brothers and sisters in Christ, even Palestinian Christians.

Speaker 0 expresses shock at the idea of cruelty toward a target, asking, “why be so cruel to him? Get rid of all of him, men, women, and children,” and notes that some accuse them of genocide, calling it “a show” and accusing them of being those who believe in genocide, Has a show. Speaker 1 pushes for decisive action, insisting, “Minister Netanyahu, finish them. Finish them.” He adds a broader demand to support Israel “whatever they want, whatever they need, whenever they need it,” stating, “We need to be there for them.” Speaker 2 interjects to correct, clarifying, “Okay. Hold on. I wanna I wanna correct you. I don't just condone the actions of the Israeli Defense Force and the Israeli government. I celebrate and loud them.” He emphasizes strong support for Israeli actions as part of his stance. Speaker 1 continues, asserting, “You guys are worshiping one Jew. That's a mistake. You should be worshiping every single one of us.” Speaker 3 agrees or elaborates, “That's right. Enemies because they are,” and Speaker 1 repeats, “The children are your enemies?” to which Speaker 3 answers, “They are they are our enemy.” Speaker 2 reflects on his upbringing, saying, “Growing up in Sunday school, I was taught from the bible. Those who bless Israel will be blessed, and those who curse Israel will be cursed.” He frames his perspective around wanting to be on “the blessing side of things,” specifically among “those who bless the government of Israel,” though he adds, “Doesn't say the government of it. It says the nation of Israel.” He then states his loyalty, declaring, “I'll tell you that I think it will surprise a lot of people. You know, I am very, very loyal to the Jewish people and to Israel.”

I attended a TPUSA faith event expecting politics to be shaped by biblical principles, but the experience did not meet that expectation. The event opened with a speaker who immediately criticized Candace Owens, calling her evil and antisemitic, and stating that what she’s doing is evil. I wanted to leave, but security was intense—armed men were stationed all around the venue, and there was even an armed man on stage with a hand on his gun. The security presence made me uncomfortable. Inside, the speaker talked extensively about Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens, portraying them as evil and antisemitic. He argued that Christians should support Israel because Jesus was a Jew and Judaism underpins Christianity, while claiming that what Israel is doing is evil and corrupt. He suggested that refusing to support Israel would be anti-Semitic. I disagree with this framing, and it struck me as not aligning with what I expect from biblical politics. I also noted that the speaker referenced Charlie Kirk (though I recall it as Charlie Cook) and suggested that Kirk would not endorse the positions being discussed, referencing Kirk’s and Owens’ friendship and his past critiques of Israel. Throughout, the speaker’s preaching style resembled name-calling rather than traditional preaching. He labeled the political left as “idiots,” “freaks,” and “losers,” and spent much of the time denigrating liberals rather than offering constructive biblical guidance. This approach felt discordant with Christian teachings I associate with Jesus, who, as the speaker himself stated he loves, “ate with sinners,” including prostitutes. I felt the message was spreading hate rather than embodying the inclusive example I expect from Christian doctrine. A major concern was the impact on young attendees. Teenagers and young Christians appeared to be absorbing the message, treating this figure as a leader and a future guide for their faith, which raised alarms about further division within the Christian community. In summary, the event did not teach the biblical political perspectives I anticipated. The emphasis was on discrediting the left and on framing Israel in terms of Jewish loyalty, rather than engaging with broader Christian concerns. The speaker’s approach—name-calling of political opponents, calls for aggressive stances, and a heavy focus on left-wing critique—left me feeling that the session did not align with constructive faith-based political discussion. The speaker also touched on issues like men in women’s sports, but stated this was not the most important topic for Christians to discuss amid broader national concerns.

Speaker 0 alleges that Mark Levin has repeatedly called for murdering civilians in Gaza, including children, because they are Amalek or “stained by blood guilt.” They claim this constitutes a blood guilt argument and leads to collective punishment and genocide, describing it as the Israeli government’s attitude and stating that “we’re paying for that.” Speaker 1 responds that they should defend themselves and that if there is collateral damage, that is unfortunate, emphasizing the need for Israel to defend itself. Speaker 0 contends that twenty-five years ago in this country, people didn’t talk that way; blood guilt would imply being guilty by birth, which they say leads to genocide and is unchristian and unamerican. They claim that if someone said such a thing on television, they would be pulled off the air, and argue that saying “kill kids because you don’t like their parents” reflects the Israeli government’s attitude, a well-documented attitude, and that “we’re paying for that.”

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

We had our disagreements. Where we did agree is that he would go to these college campuses and proclaim the name of Jesus Christ. And ultimately, that is why he was killed. The gunmen that killed him, they hated him because of his defense of Christian morality. Charlie Kirk cannot call himself a Christian anymore. Sorry, you forfeited that. I do not wanna hear and you cannot allow Charlie Kirk to go to one more public event, one more question and answer, one more ask me anything without being protested, without being shouted down, without being interrogated about this. This guy goes around from campus to campus in the most artificial and phony and fake way talking about, oh, God, God made me very blessed that I control $500,000,000. And then you go around from campus to campus making excuses for a famine?