reSee.it - Related Video Feed

So you first moved to The Holy Land in 1996 Correct. Yep. As a nun. How are Christians doing in The Holy Land? it's become a very difficult time for them there. Basically, the Christians are in the same situation as the Muslims being a Palestinian. So there's two different things. If you live in Israel, you're a citizen, and so they are can live there and work, but there's sort of some petty grievances that people might have. But if you're a Christian in Palestine, which is where most of activities of the life of Christ are Bethlehem, Jerusalem, the Mount Of Olives, Jericho, Jacob's Well, that's all within Palestine. That's the predominance of the Christian population there, and they're treated with the effects of the occupation.

I can't go back to my home, which I last saw from the Lebanon-Israel border in 2018 with my family. I showed my children the hospital, school, and church built by their grandparents, but they will never see them. Wealth means little if you can't provide your children with a safe country. In America, we strive for success and kindness, but we must also be wise. While we aim to do good, we must recognize and confront the encroachment of evil in our society. It’s uncomfortable, but we must identify and uproot it from our communities and colleges to live in peace with people of all faiths.

Hezbollah was formed in 1982 by displaced Shiites in South Lebanon to resist Israel's ethnic cleansing and colonization. The conflict stems from old Lebanese towns in northern Israel, with Lebanese people seeking to reclaim them. The speaker criticizes the notion of "might makes right" and advocates for international law. Israel is portrayed as losing ground due to hostile policies and alienating neighbors. The speaker warns that the international community cannot protect Israel from Hezbollah's retaliation. Israel's actions have angered many, leading to inevitable consequences.

Speaker 0 states that socialism, Islam, and Palestine are the three holy grail taboos in American politics. Speaker 1 responds enthusiastically. Speaker 0 asks why Palestine is a part of Speaker 1's politics. Speaker 1 answers that growing up in the third world gives a different understanding of the Palestinian struggle.

The speaker discusses entitlement to a homeland and the beliefs of Orthodox Jews regarding exile and punishment. They state that “none of these Jews, Zionists, whoever's on board, I'm not sure who's who, acknowledge that, in fact, Orthodox Jews don't believe, and I can readily acknowledge that the Jewish people are not entitled to a homeland because they're supposed to live in exile because they broke the covenant with God many times. So that's their punishment, and that's what's in their text.” They emphasize that the belief is “very simple” and reject the idea that the issue is complicated. They note that not all Jews were exiled from ancient Israel, with some remaining, some exiled, and some converting to Christianity or Islam. The speaker then brings in a point about historical coexistence. They reference Tom, acknowledging that Jews did lead peace peacefully in Muslim countries such as Morocco, and “also under the Islamic caliphate, the empire actually for what, eight centuries in Spain, where Jews, Muslims, and Christians lived peacefully and thrived.” They describe this period as a time when “there were amazing scientific discoveries that happened then. There was amazing philosophy. There was amazing literature works that were created from it. It was a beautiful time for everybody. We all lived in harmony.” The narrative continues to contrast this harmony with a later development. They state, “And then what happened? Well, I think we already know what happened.” They attribute the change to the arrival of “the Christians” and then reference “the Christian fundamentalists, the radicals” who came and wrote, implying a disruption or end to that era of coexistence. In summary, the speaker presents a sequence: (1) Orthodox Jewish belief that Jews are not entitled to a homeland due to covenant-breaking, viewed as a straightforward issue; (2) acknowledgment that not all Jews were exiled, with variations including those who remained, were exiled, or converted; (3) recognition of a historical period of peaceful coexistence among Jews, Muslims, and Christians under Islamic rule in places like Morocco and medieval Spain, accompanied by significant scientific, philosophical, and literary achievements; (4) a claim that Christian fundamentalists and radicals later ended that harmony, marking a shift from the prior era.

Lebanon used to be the only majority Christian country in the Middle East, known for its open-mindedness, multiculturalism, and high-quality universities. By the 1970s, the Christian majority shifted due to the growth of the Muslim population, who are allowed to marry up to four wives. As Muslims became the majority, violence against Christians increased. By 1974, it became unsafe for Christians to travel due to checkpoints where they were targeted. In 1975, civil war erupted after an attack on a church. Muslims, supported by oil money, aimed to use Lebanon as a base against Israel. Lebanon, once nearly 70% Christian, saw its demographics change within thirty years. Despite a fair division of government posts after independence, the new Muslim majority became intolerant and began massacring Christians, believing they now had the power to dictate the rules.

I was born in Lebanon, once the only majority Christian country in the Middle East, known for its openness and multiculturalism. We had the best universities and a strong economy, attracting students and professionals from across the region. Beirut was even called the Paris of the Middle East. However, this changed when we began to welcome people who did not share our values. My personal tragedy began in 1975 when a Palestinian radical Islamist bombed my home, injuring me and burying me under the rubble. I spent two and a half months in the hospital and then lived in a bomb shelter for seven years, enduring a life without electricity, water, or sufficient food, losing my youth in the process.

The speaker argues that it is not Hamas but the Palestinians themselves who are causing problems. They provide examples of Arab countries expelling Palestinians due to their support for Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait and their attempts to destabilize Jordan's government. The Palestinians then allied with socialist and Marxist organizations in Lebanon, leading to a devastating civil war. The speaker suggests that Arab nations refuse to accept Palestinian refugees because they understand the historical consequences.

Hezbollah's capabilities have been degraded, and thousands of terrorists were eliminated, including Nasrallah, his replacement, and the replacement of his replacement. Hezbollah is now weaker than it has been in many years. The Lebanese people are at a crossroads and can take back their country, returning it to peace and prosperity. If they don't, Hezbollah will continue to fight Israel from densely populated areas at the expense of the Lebanese people.

Once, Palestine was home to Christians, Muslims, and Jews, under Ottoman rule in the 1800s. After World War I, Britain claimed the land, promising support for Zionism. Many Jews sought refuge, but tensions rose as their intentions became clear. In 1948, Israel established itself, displacing thousands of Palestinians who lost their homes and rights. The conflict escalated, raising questions about humanity and dignity. It's crucial to recognize the ongoing struggle for Palestinian freedom and understand the complexities of the situation. Standing against war crimes is not anti-Semitic; it's about justice. Learn the true story of Palestine.

The Middle East used to have many Jews, but now there are very few left due to persecution and discrimination. When Israel was created in 1948, many Jews fled for their lives. It's important to respect each other's history and promote acceptance, freedom, and kindness to ensure a safe home for all.

Rania Khalek discusses Lebanon’s situation, saying the Lebanese government “effectively abandoned” the southern territory and “handed it over to Israel,” calling the signed deal “utterly shocking” and “submissive.” She argues the agreement forfeits Lebanon’s right to pursue legal cases against Israel for violations of international law and “constant war crimes,” cements Israeli occupation of the South, allows Israel to bomb whenever it “feels threatened,” and conditions any Israeli withdrawal on Lebanon colluding with the Israelis and Americans to conduct a civil war against Hezbollah in the South. Khalek says even people who are anti-resistance are alarmed, with questions about whether the government was blackmailed and how the deal could be worse than the Oslo Accords. She links the timing and rush of the agreement to earlier developments: after a memorandum of understanding and an Iranian-American meeting, she describes a “deconfliction cell” in Lebanon involving Iranians to enforce an Israeli ceasefire and “ultimate withdrawal.” She says the Lebanese anti-resistance camp “freaked out” because it would be a win for Hezbollah, Iran, and Lebanon. She claims Marco Rubio stepped in, working with Israelis and Lebanese Zionists in Washington to undermine the American-Iranian framework spearheaded by J.D. Vance. Addressing Lebanon’s internal sectarian structure, George notes the state is built on sectarian divisions, reserved parliamentary seats, and constitutional arrangements. Khalek responds that the deal is “politically untenable” and “can’t actually work,” arguing even the Lebanese army would not agree to go to war with Hezbollah or disarm them as demanded, warning this could lead to dangerous split or civil strife within the army. She cites polling distinctions, saying that in Lebanon, supporting disarming Hezbollah is not the same as supporting Israel, and that the majority sees Israel as the main enemy while also recognizing the Lebanese army cannot defend Lebanon. Khalek argues the deal creates extreme polarization by giving the pretense of Lebanese approval to a US and Israeli plan, allowing US and Israeli actors to claim legitimacy to the Iranians. She says the people who signed away Lebanon lack popular support and are in power due to American and Saudi installation after what she describes as a Hezbollah defeat in 2024, predicting opposition could lead to uprising and civil strife. She also says Israel could not disarm Hezbollah, and that Israel’s experience shows Hezbollah’s strength and continued supply and intelligence sharing with the US. She adds that in Iran, the speaker of parliament, Ghalibaf, told Nabi Bidi, the Lebanese parliament speaker and Shia leader, insisting on a ceasefire and Israeli withdrawal, setting up “contradiction” between the Israeli-U.S. plan and Iran’s position. She frames the outcome as depending on whether the Trump administration recognizes it has lost its war and chooses to change course. In a later exchange, George raises Trump’s public threats to unleash al-Qaeda from Syria against Lebanon. Khalek says this has not gone down well due to prior Syrian occupation of Lebanon and al-Qaeda’s invasion during the ISIS era, when Lebanese forces and Hezbollah cooperated to push them out and when “Jolani” (described as Ahmed al-Shara, then al-Nusra leader) led those forces. She says obstacles prevent a Syrian move: Shara is focused on stabilizing Syria’s post-regime change situation, disciplining and killing minorities, and he answers to Turkey. Khalek claims Turkey would not greenlight a Syrian invasion weakening Hezbollah in a way that could allow Israel to target Turkey next. She also points to an agreement clause internationalizing Hezbollah disarmament by saying it would receive help from Arab countries without specifying which, suggesting that if Turkey or Saudi Arabia changed their position later, the stipulation could be used to justify an Arab, including Syrian, intervention. She concludes it is unlikely to happen soon.

The discussion centers on what the speakers describe as a systematic massacre of Christians in Syria, along with violence against other minority communities. They claim churches and monasteries have been targeted, with Christian villages and others like Alawite villages set on fire and attacked, and note fires seen from miles away. They argue the Syrian government is not stopping the violence and is instead embracing the new leadership described as an ISIS terrorist, citing a photo of the leader at the United Nations with a “clean kept beard and hair gel.” They assert Christians are protest­ing in the streets, saying they are “soldiers of Christ,” while saying Christians are “sitting targets” without help. Professor Joshua Landis, of Syria Comment and the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma, explains the shift in Syria’s power dynamics. He recounts that in 2011, the Nusra Front emerged as a Syrian branch of Al Qaeda, formed with US support to the opposition against Assad. He notes that in December, nine months prior, the head of Al Qaeda reportedly swept into Damascus, took over, and “became president,” with the United States lifting sanctions and embracing him to sign a peace agreement with Israel. Landis emphasizes the minorities in Syria—Alawites (about 12%), Druze (3%), Kurds in the north—are terrified as a “Sunni supremacist” and fundamentalist regime takes power and treats minorities with disdain. He cites massacres against minorities: 17,000 Alawites killed in March, nearly 2,000 Druze killed in July, and ongoing violence. He also highlights Christian persecution, mentioning the Mar Elias church bombing in June that killed 30 parishioners and wounded over 50; the church was burned, and he notes conflicting claims about the bomber’s affiliations. He adds that Washington has lifted sanctions and encouraged the new president, while not compelling moves toward democracy or decentralization to protect minorities. The hosts question why Western media and governments remain largely silent, noting a lack of coverage by Trump or major outlets, and remark that the situation parallels civil wars in Iraq and Lebanon where minorities suffered as states collapsed. Landis argues that after the overthrow of regimes like Saddam Hussein’s, Christians in Iraq were reduced from about 3% to nearly none, due to civil strife and the rise of extremist movements, with Christians often facing persecution and forced jizya. The conversation turns to broader regional stakes, including concern that Kurdish allies, who helped defeat ISIS, may be abandoned as US troops draw down, leaving Kurdish populations vulnerable. The host urges viewers to share the segment with government representatives to demand attention to the plight of Christians in the Middle East. The discussion closes with Landis reaffirming the gravity of the situation and the absence of strong Western political will to intervene.

Professor and Host engage in a wide-ranging discussion about the Iran-Israel-Lebanon dynamic, the prospects for war, and the potential paths to change. - They open with tensions around Iran, suggesting that Netanyahu and the Israeli lobby won’t let Iran “rest,” and that Iran is implicated in the current Lebanon conflict while insisting that Lebanon’s fight is Lebanon’s own. The Professor stresses that Hezbollah is a Lebanese organization and not a direct Iranian proxy, and that Iran’s involvement is framed by its own interests rather than as an intrusive occupation of Lebanon. - The Host challenges this view, noting that Lebanon’s government decided not to join the war and that Hezbollah rearmed in the south, arguing that Iran has influence in Lebanon and that Hezbollah’s actions reflect a broader proxy dynamic in the country. The Professor counters that Hezbollah is not a proxy and emphasizes Lebanon’s sovereignty and internal affairs, while arguing that Iran can assist resistance groups when asked but should not be blamed for all Lebanese actions. - They discuss the state of the conflict: is the war over or a ceasefire that could resume? The Host asks for a probability estimate (1–10); the Professor places it at six or seven that it could re-ignite, arguing that Trump and Netanyahu will continue to push Iran and that the regime in Tehran will respond, given new leadership and a determination to avoid being disarmed or appeased. - On aims and capabilities, the Professor cites Trump’s stated desire to take over Iranian oil (per a Financial Times interview) and to “change Iran’s government,” including the idea of disintegrating Iran and establishing an Israeli-driven hegemony in the region. He also suggests Trump views oil leverage as a strategic tool against China, drawing on broader geopolitical ambitions such as the North-South Corridor. The Host and Professor discuss the idea of leveraging Iran’s oil to pressure or blockade China and to influence global power dynamics. - The conversation moves to the larger question of how to achieve U.S. objectives short of full-scale war. The Host suggests non-military options beyond sanctions, including possible tolls, business deals, or new arrangements around the Strait of Hormuz, while the Professor argues that sanctions relief would require Congressional action and that Netanyahu’s influence makes relief unlikely. The Host proposes that sanctions relief could be tied to dismantling proxies like Hezbollah, with Iran receiving asset unfreezing in exchange, and a tollbooth mechanism as possible recompense. - They compare political systems: the Host asks whether a more pragmatic Iranian leadership could compromise with the West, while the Professor challenges the notion of embracing Israel or normalization absent broader regional changes. They discuss Iranian internal politics, including protests and the 2021–2024 leadership shifts, arguing that the current leadership is generally more energetic and less likely to exercise restraint under renewed pressure. - The Wall Street Journal summary is invoked: a shift to a harderline leadership within Iran, with Mustafa Khamenei described as consolidating power and surrounding himself with hardliners who view destroying Israel as central. The Host and Professor debate whether this portends greater confrontation or potential pragmatism in dealing with the United States, emphasizing that any significant rapprochement would hinge on broader regional dynamics and the role of Israel. - The discussion turns to the prospects for a two-state solution versus a one-state outcome in Palestine. The Professor contends that a one-state solution would be unlikely unless Israel changes fundamentally, while the Host notes shifts in Western public opinion and some American youths showing increasing sympathy for Palestinian rights. They acknowledge that most polling in the U.S. still supports a two-state framework, even as younger demographics show divergent views. - They close with mutual acknowledgement that there is no straightforward path to peace, reiterating concerns about possible future confrontations, the influence of external powers, and the complexities of Lebanon’s sovereignty, Hezbollah’s role, and Iran’s internal politics. The Host and Professor each express hopes for peace, while recognizing the likelihood of continued strategic competition rather than a clear, immediate resolution.

Brigitte Gabriel, a political commentator, shares her personal story to explain her passion for speaking out against terrorism. She was born and raised in Lebanon, a once thriving Christian country in the Middle East. However, when Lebanon accepted Palestinian refugees, the country began to change. Gabriel's home was destroyed in 1975 by radical Islamic Palestinians, and she spent the next seven years living in an underground bomb shelter. The Palestinians cut off essential supplies, and Gabriel's family faced constant danger. Eventually, Israel intervened and established a security zone, allowing them to survive. Gabriel moved to Israel and became a news anchor, dedicating her life to fighting evil and understanding the hatred that drives terrorism. She encourages people to stand against barbarism and support Israel in the ongoing war against terrorism.

Dimitri Lascares, a lawyer turned journalist, describes his reporting trips in Lebanon and the surrounding region, including repeated visits to southern areas. He says that while he has been physically present in Beirut over the past five days, he has not witnessed an attack there, adding that the only attack he is aware of during his presence was an Israeli strike in Dakhia, a southern Beirut suburb, which killed numerous civilians. He describes multiple incidents in the south and Bekaa Valley, including airstrikes that he says had no conceivable military justification because they occurred in evacuated villages with no military activity observed, and attacks that he says targeted areas near Jabal Amel Hospital in Sur by destroying the hospital parking lot, putting parts of the hospital out of action, and causing civilian casualties. Overall, he characterizes what he has seen outside Beirut as a campaign of terror in the south, while saying Israel has shown “uncharacteristic restraint” in Beirut, which he attributes to threats of Iranian retaliation. Lascares argues that Iranian deterrence is being extended to Lebanon, including through Iran striking Israel despite Israel not directly hitting Iran, framing Lebanon as part of a ceasefire and retaliating on Lebanon’s behalf. He then discusses Lebanon’s political complexity, saying the Lebanese government is engaged in talks and a ceasefire with Israel while Hezbollah is the group fighting. On Hezbollah’s role, he describes Hezbollah as a resistance movement formed in response to Israeli occupation and aggression, stating it has remained fundamentally a resistance movement and that it has not occupied land recognized as Israel under international law. He claims Hezbollah is restrained and says it has significant support among the Lebanese population, with overwhelming Shia support and also meaningful Sunni and Christian support, though less than among Shias. He criticizes what he says are ceasefire terms that, according to him, include disarmament of Hezbollah without disarmament of Israel and do not require Israeli troop withdrawal or stopping destruction of civilian infrastructure in temporarily occupied areas. He links this to a broader argument that any call to disarm resistance groups should begin with disarming Israel, including weapons of mass destruction, and he notes Israel is the only state in the region not in the NNPT. On the sustainability of Israel’s campaign, Lascares says he follows resistance commentary and that Hezbollah’s documentation of attacks includes regular video reports and daily accounts of military operations. He claims these reports—he says some corroborated by Israeli media—describe Hezbollah disabling more than twenty-five Israeli Iron Dome launchers, destroying hundreds of armored vehicles (mostly Merkava tanks), and inflicting severe casualties including senior commanders and elite brigades. He says Israeli leadership has discussed potential collapse and that he cites claims of large numbers of reservists refusing duty, alongside what he describes as PTSD and a suicide crisis, arguing the Israeli force was not built for wars of attrition and is conducting a multi-front war beyond its intended scope. Asked about Western support and media coverage, Lascares says Western elites show less concern for Lebanon’s destruction than the humanitarian narrative, while he asserts public polling shows Israel is deeply disliked across many Western countries and that negative sentiment is growing. He argues the disparity between what “the people want” and what media and political elites want is increasing and could lead to a political legitimacy crisis and instability in the West. Discussing Israel, the United States, and Iran, Lascares rejects a narrative of US-Israeli tension, arguing instead that the US uses Israel as a proxy to impose hegemony over a region he describes as strategically valuable, continuing to arm and support Israel while portraying restraint rhetorically. He says Israel and the US have aligned incentives: he claims US public opposition to a war on Iran and Israeli public support for it fit a posture strategy, with Trump portrayed as restraining Netanyahu while Netanyahu is portrayed as determined to continue the war. Regarding Iranian strategy, Lascares says Iran initially pursued commensurate retaliation but shifted to disproportionate retaliation after commensurate approaches did not work. He describes Iran striking multiple US military bases in the Persian Gulf, then intensifying attacks on Israel with wave after wave of missiles and drones. He says the IDF Defense Minister Katz has reiterated that if Hezbollah attacks Israel, Israel will attack Beirut, and he argues this escalation logic would be untenable because it would leave Israel free to attack the rest of Lebanon and continue destroying infrastructure. Lascares says Iran’s toll arrangement for shipping through the Strait of Hormuz is difficult to assess externally due to Iran’s secrecy, but he says his discussions with Iranian officials and experts indicate some kind of fee is being extracted from ships transiting with Iranian consent. He argues there is “absolutely no military solution” to the toll problem, saying Iran can increase the risk of catastrophic damage without blocking shipping by using drones, ship-to-ship or land-to-ship missiles, mines, or fast attack boats. He frames the Strait of Hormuz as leverage and “their nuclear weapon,” and says the United States will eventually have to “pay the piper,” implying control would have to be ceded to Iran. On a potential diplomatic settlement, Lascares states that he sees “zero” hope of Iran giving up its nuclear program, and says Iran would accept JCPOA-type enrichment limits only with full sanctions relief and unfreezing of assets, while he says Iran would not hand over 60% enriched uranium to the US. He says Iran may be willing to dilute enrichment to about 20% for research purposes, but that any arrangement would require lifting sanctions and unfreezing assets. He argues US and Israeli concerns include the risk that sanctions relief would allow Iran to become the most powerful state in the region, and he expects escalation to continue with “catastrophic consequences for the global economy.” In closing, he says his on-the-ground experience in Iran contradicts foreign portrayals of Iranian leadership and people as extremely aggressive, irrational, or fanatical. He says he found Iranian people to be peace-loving, prepared to be reasonable and compromising, and expecting to be treated with respect as a sovereign nation. He promotes his own work by directing viewers to his YouTube channel, “Reason to Resist,” and to his X account under the handle @dimitri_laskaris.

Israel, established in 1948, is often contrasted with Palestine, which has a much longer history. However, a Muslim speaker points out that Israel has roots dating back 3000 years, with prophets teaching in the land of Canaan. King David declared Jerusalem as the capital, and even Jesus referred to the land as Israel. The name Palestine came later when the Roman emperor Hadrian expelled Jews and renamed the region. The speaker emphasizes that the Jewish people are not foreign colonialists and advocates for peaceful coexistence between Israel and Palestine. They hope to correct misconceptions and spread the truth.

In a field report from the Holy Land, Tucker Carlson and his team explore the lived experience of Christians in a region where religion, politics, and funding intertwine. The segment frames Christendom’s presence as both historical and fragile, shaped by borders, custodianship, and shifting demographics. - The setting and question: Carlson pulses between Nazareth and Jerusalem-adjacent areas, noting that the Holy Land lies within Jordan—a predominantly Muslim monarchy that funds much of the region’s religious and cultural life. The central question is how Christians are faring: thriving or suffering? The host asserts that in Israel, Christians are not thriving; their numbers are shrinking in absolute terms and as a share of the population, especially since the Gaza War and the rise of extremism. Clips circulating online purportedly show Christian clergy in Jerusalem spat upon by Jewish extremists, raising concerns about anti-Christian hostility that US funding seems to overlook or deny. - The Archbishop of Jerusalem (born in Nazareth) speaks frankly about decline and exposure to oppression: he says Christians in the Holy Land have been here for two thousand years, but today they are in a period of decline. Since 1948, many Christians fled or were expelled; the Christian population halved, with subsequent declines after 1967. He emphasizes Jerusalem as the spiritual capital of the Christian faith, but notes the thinning presence and the difficulties of sustaining communities, particularly in Nazareth and the Galilee, where emigration has increased in two recent decades. - Refugees and the Christian presence: The Archbishop notes that many Palestinian refugees from the 1948 creation of Israel were Christians, contradicting the stereotype that Palestinian refugees are predominantly Muslim. He gives an example of Beirut’s All Saints Anglican community, which is 90% Palestinian Christians from Galilee, illustrating long-standing Christian diaspora within the region. Bethlehem is highlighted as a site of economic and religious pressure due to the separation wall and movement restrictions; the Christian population in Bethlehem has fallen from about 100,000 to under 30,000. He attributes some of these declines to limited aid, both domestically and from Western churches, and to concerns that donations can end up in the wrong hands. - Aid and funding dynamics: The Archbishop argues that while Western churches provide some support through bodies like the American Friends of the Diocese of Jerusalem, a disproportionately large share of Western Christian aid flows to Jewish settlements rather than to Nazareth or Bethlehem. He contends that money from the West can be linked to settlement expansion and land confiscation in Christian areas, creating moral tension for Western Christians who fund the region. He cites Jordan’s King Abdullah as a donor who has funded repairs to sacred sites such as the Nativity and the Holy Sepulchre, illustrating a different model of custodianship and interfaith stewardship. - Custodianship and Jerusalem’s status quo: The Jordanian king is described as the custodian of holy sites in Jerusalem, including Al Aqsa and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, a framework the Archbishop says maintains a shared space for Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. He argues that handing custodianship entirely to the Israeli government would produce exclusivity and degrade the three-faith balance that has historically preserved access to sacred sites. - Practical realities for worship and safety: The Archbishop details routine security constraints around the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, especially on Holy Saturday during Holy Fire, where Israeli police restrict attendance and limit pilgrims, sometimes to a fraction of typical numbers for “safety reasons.” He notes that similar restrictions affect other holy sites and events across Israel and neighboring areas, including Orthodox and Jewish observances. He references efforts to engage U.S. diplomats, like Ambassador Mike Huckabee, to address these access limits, though without consistent success. - Everyday threats and incidents: The Archbishop describes spitting at clergy as a recurring, if not constant, problem in Jerusalem, tied to fringe groups and to a broader climate of secular or religious animus. There is talk of vandalism and intimidation directed at Christian sites, with limited legal recourse because spitting and harassment are not consistently criminalized in the way the clergy and authorities would hope. - The West Bank and Jordan as a model: The Jordanian Christian interlocutor (Speaker 3) frames Jordan as a regional model for coexistence, arguing that Christians in Jordan feel integrated with Muslims and receive constitutional protection and equal rights. He highlights three pillars of Jordan’s Christian flourishing: constitutional equality, political and social stability, and Hashemite leadership that prioritizes interfaith dialogue, meritocracy, and mercy. He notes Christian representation across government and business, suggesting that, despite being a minority (roughly 3%), Christians are disproportionately represented in leadership roles, which he sees as evidence of a functioning model for minority resilience. - Refugees as a regional test: The Jordanian interlocutor emphasizes Jordan’s long history of hosting refugees from Jerusalem, Gaza, Syria, and Iraq, framing Jordan as a nation built on refugee experience and humanitarian responsibility. He stresses that stability in Jordan—economic, political, and social—depends on leadership, constitutional rights, and the willingness of the international community to sustain support, particularly given donor fatigue and shifting attention from the US and other partners. - A plea to Western Christians: The interview closes with a call for American Christians to engage directly with ancient Christian communities in the Holy Land, to listen to their experiences, and to support stability and coexistence without reducing faith to political slogans or demonizing one group. The Archbishop concludes with a hopeful vision: Jerusalem should belong to all people, a sacred center for Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike. In sum, the conversation juxtaposes narratives of Christian decline and resilience, heavily weighted by political context, funding flows, and interfaith custodianship. It presents Jordan as a contrasting, stabilizing model for minority Christian life in the Middle East while insisting that Western Christian communities rethink their engagement and support for Christian communities in the Holy Land.

Speaker 0: Before the emergence of the state of Israel in 1948, there was a large number of Jews living in the Arab world, something like 800,000. There were Jews in Lebanon, in Syria, in Egypt, and Iraq. The Jewish community in Iraq was the most ancient, going back two and a half millennia, and it was the most prosperous, the most successful, and the best integrated into local society. But before '48, there were Jews throughout the Arab world, and Muslim Jewish coexistence was not a distant dream. It was everyday reality. The Jews and Arabs lived side by side until the arrival of Zionism. My family and I, we were Arab Jews. We spoke Arabic at home. We didn't speak any other language. Our culture was Arab culture. Our food was the most delicious, spicy Middle Eastern food. It wasn't European food. So in every sense of the word, we were Arab Jews. We Arab Jews had much more in common linguistically and culturally with non Jews around us than with Jews in Eastern Europe. In March 1950, the Iraqi parliament passed a law which said, any Jew who wants to leave the country is free to do so. They have a year to register to leave on a one way visa, and not many Jews registered to leave. And in the next year, five bombs exploded in Jewish premises in Baghdad, and that created a panic and that helped to precipitate the exodus to Israel. Yosef Basri, 28 year old lawyer and an ardent Zionist, and he was responsible for three out of the five bombs. The controller of Basri was an Israeli intelligence officer called Max Bennett. He gave him the orders. He gave him the TNT. In 1950, there were a 135,000 Jews in Iraq. By the end of 1952, there were only about 10,000 Jews left in Iraq, and a 125,000 Jews ended up in Israel. We left Iraq as Jews, and we arrived in Israel as Iraqis. But problem is that Israel claims to be the state of the Jews. Israel claims to speak on behalf of all Jews everywhere. Zionism is an Ashkenazi thing. It's nothing to do with...

In the 1970s and early 1980s in Lebanon, the PLO, or Palestinian Liberation Organization, caused suffering comparable to what occurred on October 7th in southern Israel. After being expelled from Jordan for terrorizing the king and attempting to assassinate him, the PLO, along with Yasser Arafat, relocated to southern Lebanon. Jordan, Egypt, and Syria forced Lebanon to accept this terror group to attack Israel. The Lebanese population regarded the PLO as a hostile intrusion that destabilized peace within Lebanon. Militias formed to fight back against the PLO, which had begun to relocate in Christian and Shia villages. People started to protect themselves, and some, like the speaker's father who joined the South Lebanon Army, sought to protect their families, homes, and land. They realized that they needed to ask Israel for help.

I am Brigitte Gabriel, and I want to share my story. I was born in Lebanon, a once Christian country in the Middle East. However, when we accepted Palestinian refugees, our country changed. They wanted to destroy us, and they did. At 10 years old, my home was blown up, and I spent the next 7 years living in an underground bomb shelter. We had no electricity, water, or food. We risked our lives just to get water. The world forgot about us, and we thought we would be slaughtered. Thankfully, Israel intervened and established a security zone. I moved to Israel and became a news anchor, fighting against terrorism. We must stand against barbarism and support Israel in this war.

The Jewish people have been attached to the land of Israel for 3,500 years. The loss of their land occurred during the Arab conquest in the 7th century when Arabs took over the land and made the Jews a minority. Despite being dispossessed and scattered, the Jews never gave up their dream of returning to their ancestral homeland. In the 19th century, they started coming back and building farms and factories. The conflict with the Palestinians arises from their refusal to accept a Jewish state, claiming it as their own. The speaker argues that while Palestinians can live alongside Jews, they cannot demand the dissolution of the Jewish state.

Speaker 1 claims that there is an ongoing genocide against Jews and Christians across all Middle Eastern nations. They say that in 1948 there was about a million Jews in Arab countries, and that today about 15,000 remain. They also state that Christians made up 20% of the population and now make up 5%. They contrast this with Israel by saying that in 1948 there were 150,000 Palestinians, and today there are almost 2 million Palestinians, making up about 20% of the population. Speaker 1 argues that if Israel wanted to commit a genocide against Palestinians, they “could do it in a minute,” and that Israel is doing the opposite. They assert that the Palestinian population is growing “enormously” around Israel. Speaker 1 adds that there are “no Jews in Jordan” and “no Jews in Gaza.” They also state that the number of Christians in Gaza has dropped by about 80% over the past 10 years. They conclude that genocide is not happening in Israel, but is happening in the nations around it.

The speaker references the Pope kissing the Koran and cites the Catholic Catechism, specifically 841, stating that the church’s relationship with Muslims is part of the plan of salvation and that those who acknowledge the creator, with Muslims in first place, "profess to hold the faith of Abraham" and "adore the one merciful God." The speaker promotes a comic book called The Prophet by Jack Chick, described as an inexpensive read from their ministry. The book is said to go through the history of the Muslim church and claims very few people realize it was the Catholics who started Islam. The claim is that Catholics started Islam intentionally to regain the holy land for the Catholics, funding Mohammed, training him, and sending a Catholic nun from a monastery to find a young promising Muslim, marry him, and raise up an army of Arabs to take back the holy land for the mother church. The speaker asserts that this story began to work, but later failed because Islam grew too large, and Muslims rejected the Catholics’ plan. It is claimed that Muslims “start off as a front for the Catholic church.” The speaker notes that Islam now comprises roughly 10% to 20% of the world population and asserts that most Muslims probably do not know that they “really started off as a front for the Catholic church.”

The speaker cites the Catholic Catechism, specifically section 841, to claim that the church’s relationship with Muslims is part of the plan of salvation, and that those who acknowledge the creator—first among whom are the Muslims—profess to hold the faith of Abraham and together with Catholics adore the one merciful God. The speaker mentions a comic booklet titled The Prophet by Jack Chick, described as a small, inexpensive publication that outlines what he presents as the history of the Muslim church and how it started. He asserts that Catholics started Islam, stating that Catholics funded Mohammed, trained him, and even dispatched a Catholic nun from a monastery to find a young promising Muslim, marry him, and train him to raise an army of Arabs to reclaim the holy land for the Catholic church (the mother church). According to the speaker, this effort began to succeed, but ultimately Islam grew too large and Muslims rejected the Catholics’ plan, deciding to do what they wanted instead. The speaker then asserts that most Muslims, currently estimated at around 10% to 20% of the world population, do not know that they originally started as a front for the Catholic church.