reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Two THAAD missile batteries are in Israel, 'one quarter of the world's total supply of THAAD missile batteries,' manned by US personnel to protect Israel. Since 10/07/2023, 'the United States has spent at minimum $30,000,000,000 defending Israel,' while the Israeli military budget before October 7 was 'about 25,000,000,000.' Over its existence, 'the United States has put 300,000,000,000, at least those are just the on books numbers, into supporting Israel,' making Israel 'the largest recipient of USAID over time and currently.' Egypt is second, and spending in Egypt is 'at the request of Israel.' The speaker argues this shows disproportionate US attention, noting that India and China combined represent more than a third of the world’s population.

NBC News reports that U.S. intelligence is worried about Israelis spying on top Trump administration officials, a concern the speakers say has long been known and reported. One speaker says they spoke with or communicated with an individual named as being among those targeted for espionage and that there is “a lot of anger in the Pentagon” that the government is not doing more. The speaker says at least one report indicated the concern had been elevated to critical after initially being high, while “nothing has been done at all.” The speaker adds that they are “lucky we’re even getting the reports out.” The speaker cites names allegedly involved in the espionage targeting, including Steve Witkoff, saying it is striking because Witkoff is described as being on the phone during negotiations with Benjamin Netanyahu. The speaker also references other Pentagon officials mentioned in the reporting, including officials characterized as “pro-American” and “America first folks,” stating this is “not a surprise.” The speaker emphasizes that the reported activity goes beyond spying and is “espionage,” describing it as the kind of action that would prompt immediate crisis-level response if conducted by another country against senior U.S. administration officials. They say no action has been taken to stop it, and that this is contributing to a narrative about who is “calling the shots.” The speaker also highlights a detail of timing and suppression: the information “apparently … hit the office of the Director of National Intelligence,” but was reportedly suppressed until after Congress voted on Section 224 of the NDAA, which the speaker says would link and codify the American military with the Israeli military. The speaker says it was released after that vote. They further claim that Congress is portrayed as willing participants in the arrangement, implying that the priority is linking Israel into the U.S. military structure. The speaker attributes to Benjamin Netanyahu personal priority for such a partnership, saying Netanyahu has stated that the U.S. funding of $3.8 billion is not necessary because the militaries will be linked and that the U.S. would wean off due to the partnership. The speaker concludes by arguing that such a military linkage should not occur, asserting it benefits Israel at America’s expense and saying U.S. blood has been shed because of the war they associate with Netanyahu, which they describe as directly against American interest. The speaker calls for the arrangement to end.

Public policy reparative policies “don’t tend to be nearly as effective as people want them to be, historically speaking.” Jewish people have received reparations—“Holocaust reparations, for example, from Germany?”—and there was “a gigantic fight” in Israel over whether Holocaust survivors should accept reparations from Germany, with the view that it’s “allowing them to expiate their sins, and it’s allowing them to buy off the history for $50 or whatever it is.” The reality is that “cutting people checks rarely makes them more successful from the government.” What usually makes people more successful is “a determined attempt to become the things that the meritocracy demands of you.” US foreign assistance for Israel “actually is a bargain for The United States because Israel doesn't need the money.” We spend billions on bases abroad—“$6,000,000,000 a year” in Japan, “$5,000,000,000 a year” in Germany—which means Israel “has to spend all of that money… in The United States on military product,” making it “a subsidy to the American defense industry.” There is “a deal with Israel”—“intelligence sharing and also develops its own tech” and “the helmets that our f 35 pilots use, those are Israeli developed helmets.” “That’s because Israel developed technological add ons.” “So the idea that this is sort of like a zero sum… that’s actually not true.”

The speaker references an Axios report saying Netanyahu is fuming, adding that this does not reflect conversations they’ve had with him, though Netanyahu may be saying something to others that he does not say to them. The speaker says it bothers them that people within Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet have attacked the deal and, in some ways, personally attacked the President of the United States. Their message to those cabinet members is twofold. First, they claim Donald J. Trump is the only head of state in the entire world currently sympathetic to the nation of Israel, and that he is also the head of state of the world’s superpower; the speaker says they would not attack the only powerful ally Israel has left if they were in the Israeli cabinet. Second, the speaker notes that Netanyahu, “to his credit,” has not gone down this path. They then address cabinet members attacking the President of the United States by emphasizing that, over the last three months, two-thirds of the defensive weapons that protected Israel’s homeland were built by American hands and paid for by American tax dollars. The speaker concludes that the problem for Israel is not Donald J. Trump, and that anyone in Israel who believes their biggest problem is the President of the United States needs to recognize the “reality of the situation” the country is in.

So right now, as we speak tonight, there are two THAAD missile batteries in Israel. That's one quarter of the world's total supply of THAAD missile batteries. They are American military personnel, and they are manning these batteries to protect Israel. And that shouldn't surprise you because since 10/07/2023, which is a little less than two years ago, The United States has spent at minimum $30,000,000,000 defending Israel. Israel is by far, no one comes close, the largest recipient of USAID over time and currently. They don't know how disproportionate our attention to Israel and our spending on Israel is relative to the rest of the world.

Why, the speaker asks, is the U.S. taxpayer money given to Israel used to fund social programs like monthly child allowances, income support, unemployment benefits, housing assistance, free health care, and free education through university? The speaker questions why the U.S. enables Israelis to have these benefits while many in the U.S. oppose universal health care and free education for Americans. The speaker believes it is inconsistent to fund these programs for another country while opposing them domestically. The speaker also notes that the Israeli government should not be allowed to do whatever they want without consequences from the U.S., given the billions of dollars in military assistance it receives annually.

A big part of the reason why Netanyahu even still to this day doesn't have to kowtow to The United States is because he understands the leverage he has. He understands that he is the wall that protects The United States and the Western allies from Iran. And it makes it so that we can spend our money on something else, and he spends his money and his lives protecting the rest of us against Iran.

The discussion centers on Israel, Iran, and the United States’ role, focusing on perceived double standards about “foreign agents,” changing U.S. policy under Donald Trump, and concerns about influence inside American politics. Mario and the other speaker open by reacting to news claiming Netanyahu intends to tap pro-Israel Republican lawmakers and media figures such as Mark Levin to help undo progress toward a peace deal with Iran. They argue that Netanyahu’s position is not about nuclear weapons in practice, but about continuing pressure on Iran. The speaker says deterrence and nuclear power mean Israel will not be attacked the way it fears, and that Iran’s role as a regional power has checked aggression. They also claim there is no military option to change Iran’s position, which is presented as part of why Trump signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU). The conversation then turns to a perceived double standard in U.S. discourse about foreign influence: critics fearmongering about certain countries and allegedly demonizing anyone who is complimentary or fair toward them. The speaker says careers are threatened and people are accused of being foreign agents in one case, while Israel-related foreign influence is treated as normal. They emphasize that if the U.S. treats Russia differently from Israel regarding foreign agents, the same standard should apply to both. They discuss frustration with criticism aimed at people outside the U.S. for caring about democracy and sovereignty, and note that Americans are not portrayed in similar stories to the same extent as prominent pro-Israel media figures. The speaker also argues that foreigners can support Israel verbally without risking lives or bankrolls in the way Americans would. On the war with Iran and the MOU, the speaker says Trump’s shift and signing reflect inability to pursue a military alternative, and that “math is math.” They emphasize that Iran is described as having control over the Strait of Hormuz and that prolonged conflict would worsen economic and material pressures, including a fertilizer crisis, beyond oil and gas. They argue that continuing engagement risks restarting a pointless war, especially given claims that Netanyahu is working to sabotage peace efforts. The speaker highlights Netanyahu’s stated intent to continue offensive actions in Lebanon and questions what the U.S. would do after Iran’s retaliation. Lindsey Graham’s support for the MOU is described as notable, and they debate whether this represents short-term defeat-acknowledgment while planning longer-term sabotage, versus a genuine shift. The speaker says it is difficult to determine directly but claims Israel has exerted pressure on U.S. policy for a long time and suggests the relationship is not based on genuine closeness between Trump and Netanyahu. They state Israel’s acceptance of U.S. support is framed as financially and militarily asymmetrical: the U.S. is described as funding roughly half of Israel’s military and providing major foreign aid, while the speaker claims Israel’s intelligence provided to the U.S. has allegedly pulled the U.S. into wars. A related topic is the potential merger of U.S. and Israeli military and intelligence structures. The speaker calls it “wild,” says it would make it “nearly impossible to get rid of” personnel they describe as Israeli infiltrators, and warns that it could lead to violent domestic upheaval if the trend continues. They also claim Senator Tom Cotton is pushing to merge Mossad and the CIA and call into question whether he is influenced by something like cash. The conversation includes discussion of political outcomes and voter behavior, including a claim that Israel-aligned influence may be “lucky” when fighting happens in primaries because voters are more galvanized and less focused in general elections. They argue that non-voters form a large block, that media division contributes to atomization, and that the system needs change rather than demonizing ordinary citizens. Turning to Israel’s internal perspective, the speaker says Israelis may believe they are entitled to border expansion and claims that U.S. support for decades conditions Israel to think its actions are acceptable. They argue that this makes it harder for Israeli society to undo narratives that justify harming civilians. They reject empathy toward “terrorists,” and claim that when critics label wrongdoing as terrorism, they are accused of anti-Semitism. The transcript discusses Mike Huckabee’s remarks that the U.S. “wouldn’t exist without Israel.” The speaker responds that the U.S. is older than Israel and argues that Israel cannot exist without U.S. support. They also link Huckabee’s stance to evangelical Christian beliefs about Israel’s role in the second coming, stating that those beliefs affect support for the state of Israel. They reference Huckabee’s meeting with Jonathan Pollard (described as a U.S. traitor) and say the White House response was no but there was “no problem,” expressing anger that such actions would not be treated as unacceptable. On whether Trump is under duress, they discuss claims that Trump’s behavior shifted after the 2024 assassination attempt. The speaker says they are not an insider but is influenced by Joe Kent’s claims and says Israel “has the capacity and capability” to carry out assassinations and use blackmail. They continue that Trump’s choices may reflect constraints rather than ideological alignment. Finally, they discuss how much control a U.S. president truly has, describing the deep state, unelected bureaucrats, and agency autonomy as factors that allow decisions to be made without presidential approval, including references to CENTCOM and past claims that “authorization from the U.S.” does not necessarily mean Trump personally authorized actions. The conversation concludes with the speaker expressing hope Trump continues working toward peace, while emphasizing skepticism that the MOU will lead to a lasting peace deal, and warning that U.S. influence structures and institutional autonomy could undermine desired outcomes.

Support for Israel in the Middle East should not require an apology. It is seen as a valuable investment, worth $3 billion, and crucial for protecting American interests in the region. In fact, the United States would even create Israel if it didn't exist already.

The speaker references an Axios report claiming that Netanyahu is “fuming,” saying it does not reflect the conversations the speaker has had with him, but may reflect something Netanyahu is saying to others. The speaker says what bothers them is that people within Netanyahu’s cabinet have come out and attacked the deal, and in some cases personally attacked the President of the United States. The speaker’s message to those cabinet members is twofold. First, Donald J. Trump is described as the only head of state in the entire world who is “sympathetic to the nation of Israel” at this moment, and he is also described as the head of state of the world’s superpower. The speaker adds that if they were in the Israeli government cabinet, they “might not be attacking the only powerful ally” left. Second, the speaker says Netanyahu, “to his credit,” has not gone down this path. For other cabinet members attacking the President of the United States, the speaker points to recent support: over the last three months, “two-thirds of the defensive weapons” that protected Israel’s homeland have been built by American hands and paid for by American tax dollars. The speaker concludes that Israel’s problem is not Donald J. Trump, and says anyone in Israel who thinks the President of the United States is their biggest problem needs to recognize the situation Israel is in.

Charlie Kirk is accused of critiquing Israel’s actions in Gaza during this summit, with claims that he is supposed to be a Christian conservative. A number of participants argue that critiques of Israel are being framed as anti-Semitism, while others emphasize that disagreeing with the current Israeli government or questioning AIPAC does not automatically make someone anti-Semitic. One participant says the repeated “anti-Semitism” labeling is being used as an excuse to “spout anti-Semitism.” They argue that people treat Israel as sacred while demanding reduced involvement, referencing uncertainty about “Messiah” and “Reminds me of the CIA.” Another participant responds that an ally should treat an ally differently, and claims they are told that criticizing AIPAC is anti-Semitic. A participant states they have “concerns about AIPAC,” describing it as a prioritization problem: citizens vote and pay attention to American interests, but “a separate group gets higher priority.” Another participant says the entirety of the idea of a PAC is to represent a group, but criticizes allowing a group they claim “doesn’t even represent American interests” to influence representatives. They also claim that only about 20 members across the Senate and House are fully doing the work of the American people. The discussion includes examples of anti-Semitic accusations being dismissed. One participant says they do not hate Jews, and argues that defending a nation should not be treated as hatred. Another participant compares the dynamic to how “racism” is used—if people disagree, they are called names without proof, based on inability to “prove them wrong.” On Israel aid, a participant says the U.S. sends almost $4 billion to Israel “every year,” totaling $319 billion adjusted to inflation since 1948, and says this makes them upset. They argue the money could be better spent supporting an economy at home, including homes, rather than military strikes. They respond to a hypothetical five-year plan for Israel to decouple from USAID by saying Israel could be self-reliant, with balanced budgets and a sovereign wealth fund, and that such a transition would make people think higher of Israel and stop constant discussion. Religious references are raised, including Genesis 12.3 and Romans 9-6, and the conversation notes someone describing being ethnically Jewish and having concerns about AIPAC. A final exchange asks whether canceling Tucker would change anti-Semitism levels; one participant says it would increase because supporters would be treated as anti-Semites by association. The conversation ends with a claim that there is an “earthquake” coming on the issue that others do not believe, and urges hearing it “from people themselves.”

With the money that we, the taxpayers, have given Israel over the last seventy five years, they are now able to give families a monthly child allowance for each child they have, income support, unemployment benefits, housing assistance, free health care, and free education through university. So I ask again, why are we okay making it possible for Israelis to do that. But when it comes to our country, a whole group of people are totally against the idea of universal health care and free education. I need someone to explain to me why it's okay to fund their abilities to do that. No ally of The United States should be allowed to do or say whatever they want without any consequences from us, not when we give them billions of dollars every single year. And none of what I'm saying is even delving into the fact that what the Israeli government is doing with all the military assistance that we've given them.

Speaker argues that "Israel's really last remaining ally of size other than The UK is The United States" and that the relationship carries a "huge cost," while Americans "marinate in lies" about it from "our political class" and the media. Blame is placed on "our elected leaders" who "continuously lie to us about the nature of this relationship, its significance, and they do it generationally." Citing Nikki Haley's 2023 debate, he notes: "Last thing we need to do is to tell Israel what to do... The only thing we should be doing is supporting them and eliminating Hamas. It is not that Israel needs America. America needs Israel." He asserts: "Israel could not survive without The United States." "Every dollar that goes to the Israeli military from The United States is a dollar that the nation of Israel can spend on its own people." "There is no world in which America needs Israel more than Israel needs The United States." He laments a "state of perpetual intimidation" that prevents an honest conversation.

In the Middle East, it's time to stop apologizing for supporting Israel. There's no need for apologies because our support for Israel is a valuable investment of $3 billion. Without Israel, the United States would have to create it to safeguard its interests in the region.

The U.S. has contributed more to Israel's defense budget than Israel itself in the last three years. This year, the U.S. gave nearly $3.1 billion to Israel, making it the top recipient of American foreign aid. This occurs while many Americans struggle with finances, senior citizens can't afford medications, veterans are underserved, and schools are closing. Israel ranks among the top 30 richest countries, yet receives a large lump sum of aid upfront, allowing it to accumulate interest while the U.S. pays interest on the borrowed money. Additionally, the U.S. gives billions to Egypt and Jordan to discourage them from opposing Israeli policies, adding to the financial burden. With presidential elections approaching and promises to cut spending to address the $16 trillion debt, some argue the U.S. should prioritize its own needs.

The discussion centers on an arrangement involving Israel’s missile systems and technology, with one participant describing Israel as being framed as doing the United States a favor by allowing access to Israel’s technology “for the Iron Dome level of stuff.” One participant counters that Israel “is getting a lot of that” and that the relationship is not accurately characterized as one-sided generosity, adding that Israel has received “a lot” of military technology and weaponry. One participant argues that Israel is not the “giver” in the relationship, especially in intelligence, describing Israel as “the taker” and the U.S. as “the host,” referencing John Kiriakou and others from their perspective. They say that everyone they have spoken with, including people they mention (including Kiriakou and Bustamante), has told them versions of this same idea, concluding that the notion of Israel’s role as purely a nice thing for U.S. benefit “doesn’t feel like what I’ve seen in reality.” They also address the demeanor of a media-trained individual they spoke with, describing him as “impressively media trained” and “unflappable,” even while being pressed. The conversation includes uncertainty about specifics, including the formalization of Israeli companies being on U.S. soil, which the speaker says they “didn’t quite still get.” A key moment is the speaker stating that “none of us want this,” calling it unpopular and saying they feel the U.S. is “teaming up with the most diabolical country.” They describe the other person reacting with “interesting,” while still referencing Iran as a threat. The speaker contrasts the framing, saying that the war is branded with Iran even though Iran is the one attacked, and that the person attacked gets branded with the label “Iran war.” The speaker concludes by saying the situation is “ass backwards,” asserting that the narrative outcome was predictable, and that objective observers would see that it was “not in our interest.” They argue the framing places “people” listening in a position where the U.S. has to “defend the Iranian regime,” which they say no one wants to do.

Speaker argues the United States is Israel's last large ally besides the UK, with a large cost and limited perspective due to lies from the political class and media. They blame U.S. elected leaders for decades of misrepresentation. Citing Nikki Haley's 2023 Republican primary debate, the quote: "Last thing we need to do is to tell Israel what to do. The only thing we should be doing is supporting them and eliminating Hamas. It is not that Israel needs America. America needs Israel." The speaker contends this is inverted: "Israel could not survive without The United States." American backing funds Israeli wars and social services; "every dollar that goes to the Israeli military from The United States is a dollar that the nation of Israel can spend on its own people." Haley wasn't asked to explain, and questioning geopolitics is feared as antisemitic, leading to "a state of perpetual intimidation" and "We have not had an honest conversation about this ever."

"In the past three years, Americans have paid more for Israel's defense budget than Israelis themselves, according to the Israeli army's former chief of staff." "The United States gave nearly $3,100,000,000 to Israel this year, making it the number one contributor of American foreign aid." "And yet during this time, we're giving a huge amount of money to Israel." "Israel ranks among the top 30 richest countries in the world, while some of the poorest countries only see a fraction of that amount in USAID." "According to the Congressional Research Center, once dispersed, Israel's military aid is transferred to an interest bearing account with the Federal Reserve Bank." "This means Americans are paying interest on the billions of dollars given to Israel, while Israel accumulates interest on those same billions."

The speaker argues that withholding U.S. military funding for Israel—specifically the $2,000-pound bombs, guided munitions, and offensive weapons, and possibly not even continuing offensive weapon transfers for a week—would lead to a peace deal. The speaker claims this would also be immediately reflected in the U.S. economy, saying gas and diesel prices would drop five percent instantly once that happened, framing it as an “admission” that the war should never have been initiated. The speaker presents this as a way to “save American lives” and “put America first.” The speaker then says Benjamin Netanyahu is “one step ahead,” pointing to a letter posted online over the last few days in which Netanyahu calls for a new framework for aid to Israel. The letter, according to the speaker, reduces aid to Israel but reframes it as a “partnership,” with the idea that the relationship is not ended but “deepened.” The speaker describes the reframing as Israel presenting aid as an arrangement among equals rather than assistance, asserting, “don’t end the relationship, deepen it,” and “we’re actually equals, we’re partners,” implying that the U.S. would still provide resources while Israel accesses them under that new framing. The speaker criticizes the suggestion, saying it shows “hubris” and makes the speaker feel Netanyahu believes Americans work for him. The speaker concludes by stating that Netanyahu will likely get his way unless he changes the plan.

Israel is crucial for the United States' interests in the region. Without Israel, the US would need to create it. The US sees Israel as a valuable investment, providing $3 billion annually.

Speaker 3 said he has been told that criticizing AIPAC makes him anti-Semitic. Speaker 1 called that “ridiculous.” Speaker 3 said it feels good to have concern for one’s country and asked whether AIPAC represents a “cutting in line of prioritization” away from the American people—meaning that although Americans vote and are citizens, a separate group gets higher priority. Speaker 0 responded that the point of a PAC is to represent a group, but said there is a “huge problem” with allowing a group that does not represent American interests to influence people who are supposed to represent Americans. Speaker 0 said he has previously stated that he thinks only “like 20 representatives between Senate and the House” fully do the work of the American people without the interests of some group pulling their sway. Speaker 1 said that “over since 1948” the amount amounts to “$319 billion adjusted to inflation” and argued that there are multiple things the money could have been spent on at home instead of military strikes for Israel. Speaker 1 said the money could have been better allocated toward supporting an economy that would help the current generation afford homes. Speaker 3 asked what else would improve views if Israel’s government presented a “five-year plan to decouple from us aid,” including moving toward self-reliance, and noted that Israel is a rich country that has balanced its budget and money in a sovereign wealth fund. He asked whether people would think more highly of Israel if it stopped relying on U.S. aid and if the issue were talked about less. Speaker 2 agreed that people should be less focused on labeling, saying that the word “racism” is used when there is disagreement and that “we just have to call them a name.” Speaker 2 said he does not think people are anti-Semitic, arguing that people “just can’t agree with them” and can’t “prove them wrong,” so they “throw a word out” like “anti-Semitic” because they think the U.S. should stop sending money there. Speaker 3 said, “thank you” and noted that some people he tells “must get more aggressive.”

The discussion centers on how politicization of intelligence has manifested in different eras, comparing past and present administrations. Speaker 0 asks whether the politicized weapons claims about Iraq and the CIA’s statements in the 1990s can be compared to today’s politicization of intelligence under John Ratcliffe and Tulsi Gabbard as head of DNI, arguing it is much worse now because of the mediocrity of those in control of key agencies. Speaker 1 counters by recalling the 1980s, noting that there was significant politicization of the Soviet threat to justify Reagan’s defense buildup, and adds that this is why he testified against Robert Gates in 1991. He asserts that politicization is bad, and insists that the current situation is worse than in the past. Speaker 1 explains: “It’s Because I look at the people who are ahead of these groups. Come on. Let’s be serious.” He targets the leadership of the director of national intelligence, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and the CIA, saying, “Have you ever seen a cabinet in The United States of such mediocrity, of such venality?” He emphasizes his background, stating, “I haven’t,” and that nothing compares to what is going on now, warning that “a lot of damage is being done to The United States and to the constitution of The United States and to the importance of separation of powers and the importance of rule of law and the importance of checks and balances. This is very serious stuff.” Speaker 0 attempts to steer toward historical figures like Robert Maxwell, but Speaker 1 dismisses that concern as off point, insisting he is making a point about Israel. The exchange then shifts to U.S. support for Israel, with Speaker 1 asserting that “Israel gets what it wants from The United States. It gets it from democratic presidents and from republican presidents.” He also criticizes Barack Obama for signing what he calls “that ten year $40,000,000,000 arms aid agreement,” arguing that Obama “never should have signed” it “because they treated Obama so shabbily in the first place.”

Investing $3 billion in Israel is the best decision we make. We shouldn't apologize for supporting Israel in this body. It's a crucial investment for the United States. In fact, if Israel didn't exist, the US would have to create it to safeguard its interests in the Middle East.

Speaker 0: Do we need this connection with Israel? What is it? No one ever explains what it's for. I feel like. Right? That would help everybody have a much better understanding, you know, because it starts to feel like America is just a shell company, an LLC for Israel. That's what it starts to feel like a lot of times, you know? Do you feel like that that's realistic, or do you feel like that that's off base? Speaker 1: I would I wouldn't send them a dime. Like, that's my position. I don't think whatever we're getting isn't worth it.

The speaker asks how much support the U.S. gives to Israel. The response is approximately $3 billion a year in military assistance. It is asserted that this military assistance is the only assistance Israel receives from the U.S. There is a memorandum of understanding (MOU) for the $3 billion annual amount.