reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speakers discuss the idea of using nuclear weapons. Speaker 2 believes it would solve problems, but Speaker 0 points out the negative consequences of radiation. Speaker 2 suggests that those who support nuking should go live with them. Speaker 1 emphasizes the desire for peace. Speaker 2 acknowledges a difference between the leadership of Hamas and innocent civilians. Speaker 0 mentions resources in the video description. Speaker 2 warns that using nuclear weapons would make the world hate Israel. Speaker 0 questions the need to deal with them when Israel is already stronger.

The speakers discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the issue of civilian casualties. Speaker 1 argues that it is not helpful to equate the intentional killing of Israelis with unintentional deaths of Palestinians. Speaker 0 questions this viewpoint and asks what Israel would do if Hamas were hiding in their country. Speaker 1 believes Israel would pursue different tactics due to the presence of Israelis. The conversation highlights the difference in motivation between the two sides and the concern for civilian lives.

Speaker 0 hopes Benjamin Netanyahu, his generals, and the Israeli industry burn in hell. Speaker 1 says they were looking for babies but found none, and admits to possibly killing a 12-year-old girl. Speaker 1 states an investigation is underway regarding the potential war crime of Israeli forces blowing up the main drinking water reservoir in Raqqa. Speaker 1 says they cannot feel comfortable with assistance from Trump, Sleepy Joe, or Obama because of Jews. Speaker 1 claims Jews rule the world by proxy, getting others to fight and die for them, and that anyone criticizing Israel is accused of antisemitism. Speaker 1 says they were forced to participate in an infant sacrifice for power. Speaker 2 says they will do whatever is needed to defend themselves.

Pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel speakers present their arguments regarding the conflict in Gaza. The pro-Israel speaker criticizes Palestine for relying on Israel's infrastructure while wanting to wipe it off the map. They also mention Hamas using EU-funded plumbing tubes for rockets. The pro-Palestinian speaker blames Israel and the US for the violence, accusing them of genocide. The pro-Israel speaker highlights a terrorist attack on Israel and mentions the aid given to Palestine by the US. The pro-Palestinian speaker claims thousands of Palestinians are killed daily, but this is disputed. The conversation ends abruptly.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they are an IDF soldier. Speaker 1 confirms that they are. Speaker 0 questions the IDF's actions in bombing Gaza and killing children. Speaker 1 claims to not have knowledge about it, but states that they bomb Gaza in response to being bombed. Speaker 0 asks about the reasons behind the initial bombings. Speaker 1 admits to not knowing the information. Speaker 0 mentions that before 1948, the region was called Palestine and argues that it is still occupied Palestine. Speaker 1 doesn't dispute it. Speaker 0 expresses a desire for more children to be harmed, and Speaker 1 responds with aggression. The conversation ends abruptly.

The conversation centers on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Iran, and regional dynamics, with Speaker 0 (a former prime minister) offering sharp criticisms of the current Israeli government while outlining a path he sees as in Israel’s long-term interest. Speaker 1 presses on US interests, Lebanon, and the ethics and consequences of the war. Key points and claims retained as stated: - Iran and the war: Speaker 0 says he supported the American strike against Iran’s leadership, calling Ayatollah Khamenei’s regime a brutal threat and praising the move as punishment for Iran’s actions, including backing Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. He questions why there was a lack of a clear next-step strategy after the initial attack and asks whether a diplomatic alternative, similar to Obama’s Iran agreement, could have achieved nuclear supervision without war. He notes the broader regional risk posed by Iran’s proxies and ballistic missiles and emphasizes the goal of constraining Iran’s nuclear program, while acknowledging the economic and security costs of the war. - On Netanyahu and influence: Speaker 1 references the New York Times report about Netanyahu’s influence on Trump and asks how much Netanyahu affected the decision to go to war. Speaker 0 says he isn’t certain he’s the best judge of Netanyahu’s influence but believes Netanyahu sought to push the war forward even during a ceasefire and that Iran’s threat required action, though he questions whether the next steps beyond initial strikes were properly planned. He states, “Iran deserve to be punished,” and reiterates the need for a strategy to end hostilities and stabilize the region. - Proxies and regional instability: The discussion highlights Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis as Iranian proxies destabilizing the Middle East, with Speaker 0 insisting that Iran’s support for these groups explains much of the regional violence and Israel’s security concerns. He argues that eliminating or significantly curbing Iran’s influence is essential for regional stability. - Gaza, West Bank, and war ethics: Speaker 1 cites humanitarian and civilian-impact statistics from Gaza, arguing that the war has gone beyond a proportionate response. Speaker 0 concedes there were crimes and unacceptable actions, stating there were “war crimes” and praising investigations and accountability, while resisting the accusation of genocide. He criticizes certain Israeli political figures (e.g., Ben-Gvir, Smotrich) for rhetoric and policies that could protract conflict, and he condemns the idea of broad acceptance of annexation policies in the South of Lebanon. - Lebanon and Hezbollah: The core policy debate is about disarming Hezbollah and the future of Lebanon-Israel normalization. Speaker 0 argues against annexing South Lebanon and says disarming Hezbollah must be part of any Israel–Lebanon peace process. He rejects “artificial” solutions like merging Hezbollah into the Lebanese army with weapons, arguing that Hezbollah cannot be permitted to operate as an independent armed force. He believes disarming Hezbollah should be achieved through an agreement that involves Iran’s influence, potentially allowing Hezbollah to be integrated into Lebanon’s political order if fully disarmed and bound by Lebanese sovereignty, and with international support (France cited). - Practical path to peace: Both speakers acknowledge the need for a negotiated two-state solution. Speaker 0 reiterates a longstanding plan: a two-state solution based on 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine, the Old City administered under a shared trust (involving Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Palestine, Israel, and the United States). He emphasizes that this vision remains essential to changing the regional dynamic and that the current Israeli government’s approach conflicts with this pathway. He frames his opposition to the present government as tied to this broader objective and says he will continue opposing it until it is replaced. - Personal reflections on leadership and regional hope: The exchange ends with mutual recognition that the cycle of violence is fueled by leadership choices on both sides. Speaker 0 asserts that a different Israeli administration could yield a more hopeful trajectory toward peace, while Speaker 1 stresses the importance of accountability for war crimes and the dangers of rhetoric that could undermine regional stability. Speaker 0 maintains it is possible to pursue peace through a viable, enforceable two-state framework, and urges focusing on disarming Hezbollah, negotiating with Lebanon, and pulling back to an international front to prevent further escalation. Overall, the dialogue juxtaposes urgent punitive action against Iran with the imperative of a negotiated regional settlement, disarmament of proxies, and a concrete two-state solution as the viable long-term path, while condemning certain actions and rhetoric that risk perpetuating conflict.

Speaker 0 accuses Israelis of wanting Palestinians dead, claiming they say Palestinians aren't human and it's okay to burn them all, with the goal to destroy them and take over Palestine. Speaker 0 asserts they have seen evidence of this and demands Speaker 1 stop lying and deceiving. Speaker 0 states they have been to these places and will never be a paid killer or murder anyone to steal their land. Speaker 0 claims Speaker 1 is not a man for fighting children and random men with sticks and stones, not a military. Speaker 0 alleges that when Israel fights a military, they run and call the United States to solve their problem, calling them cowards. Speaker 0 says Speaker 1 is trying to act objective because their babies aren't dying and calls them a fool and a monster for not displaying a human reaction to murdering children.

Israel is accused of trying to erase Gaza's population, not just defeat Hamas. The speaker criticizes the lack of condemnation for Israeli war crimes by interviewers, highlighting a perceived double standard. The interviewer defends Israel's actions as responses to terrorism, while the speaker argues that killing civilians for a political cause constitutes terrorism, regardless of the perpetrator. The discussion revolves around the need for consistent moral principles in evaluating violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Speaker 0 asserts that Bezalel Smotrich and Ben Gavir are “literally talking about exterminating the entire population of Gaza.” Speaker 1 counters that they are not talking about extermination. Speaker 0 insists the statements are brazen, up front, and what they actually want to do. Speaker 0 adds that Hamas is involved in a separate context. Speaker 0 says, “The West Bank had nothing to do with what happened on October 7, but they're annexing that land anyway. They're raining terror on innocent people, innocent Palestinians.” Speaker 0 concedes, “I am willing to admit, because it's the truth, that what Hamas did on October 7 was a fucking atrocity,” specifically mentioning killing innocent people. Speaker 1 challenges acknowledgement of atrocities against civilians in Gaza. Speaker 0 asks about a hospital being tapped; Speaker 1 responds that it’s an old terrorist trick and they do it “all the time.” Speaker 0 asks whether the IDF's action was wrong. Speaker 1 concedes, “I'm sure they have committed what we would call war crimes, as every army does in every war.” Speaker 0 notes, “Including our own.” Speaker 1 agrees, giving the Civil War example: Sherman burned Atlanta and Vad, arguing that despite brutality, the North were the good guys fighting slavery, and also noting Israel is fighting to survive and is the front line in the Western world. Speaker 0 disputes this, saying much of the problems in the Middle East come from an expansionist policy and that if Israel wasn’t trying to continue expanding, they would not be dealing with the enemies they’re dealing with. Speaker 1 disagrees that they ever were expanding, arguing they “were attacked” and that they “never been trying to expand.” Speaker 0 claims Israel is trying to annex the West Bank, southern Lebanon, and Syria, and argues they have succeeded in doing so. Speaker 1 says these are lands where they were attacked from when Israel became a country in 1947; he claims Israel said, “we will accept half a loaf,” and asserts they had as much right to that land as anybody, with a historical presence since a thousand BC when King David had a lineage. Speaker 0 dismisses this lineage-based argument as irrelevant to the present. Speaker 1 counters that it’s relevant, and asserts that the notion of wiping out innocent people merely because one’s ancestors lived there centuries ago is not acceptable. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 calling Palestinians colonizers, and Speaker 1 arguing they are not colonizers; they assert that Israel is annexing land, which, in their view, is described as colonization.

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.

The speakers are discussing the permissibility of collateral damage in war and whether civilians can be considered collateral damage. They mention examples of targeting refugee camps, hospitals, and mosques, with one speaker claiming that Israel targeted a hospital. The other speaker challenges this claim and asks for evidence. They also question the credibility of the evidence presented by Israel. The conversation becomes heated as they debate the validity of the evidence.

A speaker states that a genocide is occurring. Another speaker acknowledges the emotive nature of the word "genocide" and says Israelis claim they are only targeting Hamas, not civilians, through planned military incursions. The first speaker disputes this, stating the bombs are not being dropped in a targeted way. They claim an entire neighborhood was leveled, including the houses of their social media manager, estimating 100 deaths. The second speaker notes that Israelis deny genocide, saying strikes in Gaza are strategic and target Hamas. The first speaker insists this is not the case.

The conversation centers on Israel’s war with Iran and its broader regional implications, with Speaker 0 (an Israeli prime minister) offering his assessment and critiques, and Speaker 1 pushing for clarification on motives, strategy, and policy directions. Key points about the Iran war and its origins - Speaker 0 recalls learning of the war on February 28 in Washington, and states his initial reaction: the United States’ claim that Iran is an enemy threatening annihilation of Israel is understandable and something to be supported, but questions what the next steps and the endgame would be. - He argues that Iran, through proxies like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, posed a global and regional threat by arming missiles and pursuing nuclear capacity, and asserts that Iran deserved punishment for its actions. He raises the question of whether the outcome could have been achieved without war through a prior agreement supervised by international bodies. - He emphasizes that the lack of a clear, articulated next step or strategy undermines the legitimacy of the war’s continuation, even as he concedes the necessity of addressing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. - He also notes that the war affected the global economy and regional stability, and stresses the importance of coordinating a path that would end hostilities and stabilize the region. Speaker 1’s analysis and queries about U.S. interests and Netanyahu’s influence - Speaker 1 questions the rationale behind U.S. involvement, suggesting that strategic interests around the Strait of Hormuz and Iran’s nuclear program were not the only drivers, and cites reporting that Netanyahu presented Iran as weak to push Trump toward regime change, with limited pushback within the U.S. administration. - He asks how much influence Netanyahu had over Trump, and whether the war was pushed by Netanyahu or driven by broader strategic calculations, including concerns about global economic consequences. - He notes that, even if Iran was making concessions on nuclear issues, the war’s continuation raises concerns about broader U.S. and global interests and the potential damage to European and allied relationships. Israeli-Lebanese dimension and Hezbollah - The discussion moves to Lebanon and the question of a ground presence in the South of Lebanon. Speaker 1 asks whether Netanyahu’s administration intends annexation of Lebanese territory and whether there is a real risk of such plans, given the recent destruction of villages and the broader context of regional diplomacy. - Speaker 0 distinguishes between military necessity and political strategy. He says the ground operation in southern Lebanon is unnecessary because Hezbollah missiles extend beyond 50 kilometers from the border, and he argues for negotiating a peace process with Lebanon, potentially aided by the international community (notably France), to disarm Hezbollah as part of a larger framework. - He asserts that there are voices in the Israeli cabinet that view South Lebanon as part of a Greater Israel and would seek annexation, but he insists that such annexation would be unacceptable in Israel and that disarming Hezbollah should be tied to a broader peace with Lebanon and Iran’s agreement if a negotiations-based settlement is reached. - The idea of integrating Hezbollah into the Lebanese military is rejected as artificial; disarmament is preferred, with the caveat that Hezbollah could not be dissolved as a military force if Iran remains a principal backer. Speaker 0 suggests that a Hezbollah disarmed and integrated into Lebanon’s political-military system would require careful design, potentially with international participation, to prevent Hezbollah from acting as an independent proxy. War crimes and accountability - The participants discuss imagery like a soldier breaking a statue of Jesus and broader allegations of misconduct during the Gaza war. Speaker 0 condemns the act as outrageous and unacceptable, while Speaker 1 notes that individual soldier actions do not represent an entire army and contrasts external reactions to abuses with a broader critique of proportionality in Gaza. - Speaker 0 acknowledges that there were crimes against humanity and war crimes by Israel, rejects genocide, and endorses investigations and accountability for those responsible, while criticizing the political leadership’s rhetoric and the behavior of certain ministers. - They touch on the controversial death-penalty bill for Palestinians convicted of lethal attacks, with Speaker 0 characterizing the Israeli government as run by “thugs” and criticizing ministers for celebratory conduct, while Speaker 1 argues that such rhetoric inflames tensions. Two-state solution and long-term vision - The conversation culminates in Speaker 0 presenting a long-standing two-state plan: a two-state solution based on 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine, and the Old City of Jerusalem not under exclusive sovereignty but administered by a five-nation trust (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Palestine, Israel, and the United States). - He asserts that this approach represents an alternative to the current government’s policies and reiterates his commitment to opposing Netanyahu’s administration until it is replaced. - They close with mutual acknowledgment of the need for a durable peace framework and reiterate that Hezbollah’s disarmament must be a condition for normalization between Israel and Lebanon, while cautioning against artificial or compromised arrangements that would leave Hezbollah armed or entrenched.

Speaker 0 believes that if Israel faces annihilation, it may use its nuclear arsenal, which they never admit to having. Speaker 0 states that Iran and Hezbollah need to understand that they cannot wipe out the Israeli people. Speaker 0 denies encouraging the use of nuclear weapons but suggests that Israel needs to consider all options if faced with total destruction. Speaker 0 believes that the US military being stretched is not Israel's fault and that the US should fund its military better. Speaker 1 expresses concern about the potential involvement of the United States in the conflict and the possibility of a wider war, given the situation in Ukraine and China. Speaker 0 dismisses these concerns, stating that the focus should be on Israel's survival.

Speaker 0 argues that the Palestinian people are oppressed and suffer under the occupation. They acknowledge Hamas is an armed group, but they describe Hamas as a reaction to signals of injustice and oppression by Israel. They assert that you cannot talk about peace without justice for Palestine and express a desire to know how the other person addresses that claim. Speaker 1 responds by reframing the situation as a political conflict, stating that while there is ideology involved, the core is colonization. They describe a situation where “a fence” surrounds the people, drones fly above, and “everything is taken over there.” They insist that the people in question are not there voluntarily and describe the people breaking out of their camp as something that provokes anger, calling that a “very peculiar viewpoint.” They further claim that Hamas is largely supported and founded by Mossad, arguing that it was very handy to have Hamas to respond to reactions in the area. Speaker 0 asks for evidence to support that claim. Speaker 1 confirms that evidence exists and says they will post it on Twitter after the conversation. They add that the evidence can also be found from the Israeli government or authorities, describing it as a very specific source.

Speaker 0 asks about Palestinians in hospitals and babies on life support in Gaza whose power has been cut off by Israelis. Speaker 1 dismisses the question, saying they are fighting Nazis and don't target civilians. Speaker 0 tries to have a conversation, but Speaker 1 interrupts and raises their voice. Speaker 0 asserts their role as the host and asks Speaker 1 to address the situation, but Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 0 of shame. The conversation becomes heated and Speaker 1 refuses to engage further.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about condemning the killing of civilians. Speaker 1 defends Israel's actions, claiming they have the right to defend themselves. Speaker 0 argues that terrorists also claim the same right. Speaker 1 disagrees, stating that Hamas and Bin Laden were not defending themselves. Speaker 0 questions how an occupier can defend itself in the first place. Speaker 1 tries to respond but is interrupted. Speaker 0 continues to argue that an occupier cannot claim self-defense. Speaker 1 acknowledges Israel's mistakes but defends their actions against terror attacks. Speaker 0 questions if killing civilians is justified, and Speaker 1 argues that Hamas can be targeted if they hide among the public. Speaker 0 dismisses this argument as a fallacy and questions the necessity of bombing densely populated areas.

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.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the situation in Gaza. Speaker 0 argues that Israel is defending itself after a massacre, while Speaker 1 highlights the civilian casualties and calls for a temporary ceasefire. Speaker 0 questions why France considers the numbers provided by a terrorist organization reliable. Speaker 1 mentions alternative military strategies to minimize civilian casualties, but Speaker 0 dismisses the idea, stating that Israel knows how to conduct its military operations. The conversation becomes heated as Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of treating Israel like a child and disregarding its military expertise. Speaker 1 clarifies that the information comes from American sources. The discussion ends with Speaker 0 questioning why Israel would give advice to the French military when they don't fund it.

Speaker 0 expresses distress over videos of suffering children, describing the situation as a massacre and, for some, a genocide. They feel complicit due to tax dollars funding military actions and express a sense of powerlessness. They also suggest that American interests are sometimes secondary to those of Israel. Speaker 1 disagrees with the genocide characterization, stating that Israel is not purposely trying to murder every Palestinian, but rather trying to destroy a terrorist organization after being "hit hard." Speaker 1 acknowledges the suffering of innocent Palestinian children and emphasizes the need to eliminate the conflict and provide humanitarian assistance. They note the president is pro-Israel.

Speaker 0 expresses their opinion that Israel is not on the brink of a nuclear war, but could destroy Gaza if they wanted to. However, they acknowledge that the presence of civilians, including women and children, is the only reason Israel has not taken such action. Speaker 2 adds that some civilians in Gaza are cheering the murder of Israeli soldiers. Speaker 0 emphasizes that Israel is strong and the priority is to release Israeli hostages held by terrorists. They urge for calm and caution against expressing hysterical sentiments that could be celebrated by the enemy. Speaker 1 mentions being a veteran of the Yom Kippur War.

Speaker 0 asserts that Donald Trump decided to bomb Iran because Israelis said, for the first time, that if Trump did not bomb Iran to take out deep bunkers, Israel would use nuclear weapons; they had never threatened that before, and bombing Iran might save them from the start of World War III by preventing Israeli nuclear use. Speaker 1 asks for clarification, restating that Israelis told the U.S. president to use military power to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities, or Israel, acting on its own, would use nuclear weapons. They note the problem with that statement, since Israel has never admitted having them. Speaker 0 concurs, and Speaker 1 points out the contradiction: they are saying Israel just admitted to having nuclear weapons, yet the U.S. does not have them in the IAEA treaty. Speaker 0 adds that, if Israeli nuclear whistleblowers are to be believed, Israel has had nuclear weapons, and began working on them in the 1950s.

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.”

Speaker 0 describes the Gaza war as a response to the horrors of October 7, noting he has been to Gaza since the war began and that entering is restricted (the IDF is the only way in). He describes Gaza as a flattened place and calls the situation a disaster for the future of Israel and for the Palestinian people, with 70,000 deaths mentioned. He asserts the catastrophe is a disaster for families of the dead and for children. Speaker 1 counters that tens of thousands of civilians murdered represent a disaster for the future of Israel, but emphasizes that the real crime in Gaza is killing people who did nothing wrong. He critiques the idea that people are labeled anti-Semitic, arguing that naming accusations can silence legitimate concerns, and insists the real problem is the harm in Gaza. Speaker 0 turns to the question of Israel’s right to exist and Zionism, asking whether the respondent believes in the narrow definition of Zionism as the state of Israel having the right to continue existing. Speaker 1 pushes for definitions, distinguishing between “right to exist” and “should continue to go on as a nation state.” He asks for clarification on what the right to exist means, noting the term’s use as a political construct and questioning what “right” means in this context. Speaker 0 reframes, asking whether Israel should continue to exist, and whether the respondent seeks Israel’s destruction. Speaker 1 responds that he does not seek Israel’s destruction and does not want anyone to be killed, particularly innocents, and emphasizes a stance against killing innocents as a basis of Western civilization; he states he does not identify as a Zionist and does not understand the term, urging a definition. He reiterates he does not want Israel destroyed or to use nuclear weapons. Speaker 0 mentions the broader historical frame of Zionism, asking again about the right to exist in narrow terms. Speaker 1 again questions the usefulness of the term and emphasizes a preference for universal standards, arguing he believes in human rights that derive from the creation of people by God, rather than ethnic or group-specific rights. He asserts he supports universal human rights for all people, regardless of ethnicity or religion. In sum, the dialogue moves from the Gaza war’s human cost and the resulting disaster for civilians and future prospects, to a debate over Zionism and Israel’s right to exist, and culminates in a commitment to universal human rights and opposition to collective punishment or destruction of innocents.

Speaker 0, an IDF soldier from Israel, is asked about the IDF bombing Gaza and killing children. The soldier claims to not have knowledge about it and states that they only bombed Gaza in response to being bombed themselves. When asked about the reasons behind the bombings, the soldier admits to not knowing. The conversation then shifts to the history of Palestine and Israel, with the soldier denying that Palestine existed before 1948. The other person argues that Palestine still exists and is currently occupied. Tensions rise as the soldier threatens the other person, claiming to kill every Palestinian they see.