reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening, despite movements in the region by Israel that resulted from advocacy. The pursuit of what is necessary for the United States to be clear about its stance on the need for the war to end will continue.

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.

The speaker emphasizes that the conflict in Israel is not due to religious differences. They argue that the state of Israel does not represent all Jews or the Jewish religion. According to Jewish beliefs, creating a sovereign state through violence and oppression is forbidden. The speaker criticizes those who misuse religion to justify crimes. They believe that the root cause of the conflict is the oppressive occupation of an entire people. The speaker advises Israeli leaders to end the occupation and return the land to the indigenous population.

Israel, like other countries, is sovereign and makes its own decisions. The United States does not dictate to Israel or any country. We present what we believe is right, but ultimately it's up to them.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening. Work has resulted in movements in the region by Israel, prompted by advocacy for what needs to happen. Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening. The pursuit of what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where it stands on the need for this war to end will continue.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening, despite movements in the region by Israel prompted by advocacy. The pursuit of what is necessary for the United States to be clear about ending the war will continue.

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.

Israel, like other countries, makes its own decisions. The US doesn't dictate to any country. We present what we believe are the good options. We stand up for what we believe in the briefing room.

The speaker states they never want to see a diplomatic resolution with Hamas. They say they wanted a ceasefire, but have always been committed to the destruction of Hamas. They add that they wanted a ceasefire, but have always made clear that they wanted to see a different authority moving forward in governance of Gaza.

The speaker claims ten years of irresponsible liberal policies have divided people into groups, and this division must end so everyone feels safe. People from around the world care deeply about where they come from and should have the freedom to do so. Another speaker states that the treatment of Palestinians has been disgusting and what's going on in Gaza has clearly become a genocide. They call for an immediate ceasefire and maximum effort to encourage the return. The government has put in place a hundred million of humanitarian aid. The speaker supports a two-state solution, with a viable and free Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with the state of Israel. They state the need to check and turn Iran. To work together, consistency is required.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening. Actions by Israel in the region were prompted by advocacy for what needs to happen there. Despite this, Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening. Efforts will continue to pursue what is necessary for the United States to be clear about its stance on the need for the war to end.

Speaker 1 says the ideas discussed were developed in a think tank by a group of people, many of whom are Jewish, and adds there is “no need to apologize” for that. Speaker 1 states that everyone in the group is pro-Israel, though some are more fiercely pro-Israel than others. Speaker 0 notes that a 1996 paper—referred to as “the King Break paper”—is the paper that led to accusations of dual loyalty. Speaker 1 responds that “There is no dual loyalty.”

The speaker argues that the indigeneity of Palestinians to the land of Palestine does not entitle them to their own country within Israel. They claim almost every country was conquered, citing Canada and Australia as examples where indigenous populations like the Inuits and Aboriginals are not allowed to create their own countries. The speaker states that in 1948, Jews won a war against Arabs and Palestinians on the land, and therefore, it is now their country. They assert that no other country is expected to separate and give land to indigenous people. The speaker believes that demanding this of Israel is a result of Jew hatred, as such demands are not made of countries like the US, Mexico, Canada, or Australia.

The speaker asks where Palestinians should seek accountability for their grievances, suggesting Israeli courts may not be the appropriate venue. The other speaker responds that the U.S. will always stand up for human rights, and that is why the U.S. continues to endorse a two-state solution. The speaker says a two-state solution protects Israel’s identity as a Jewish and democratic state. It will also give the Palestinians a viable state of their own and fulfill their legitimate aspirations for dignity and self-determination. The first speaker repeats the question of where Palestinians should go.

For 30 years, I've been consistent in saying that the conflict isn't about a Palestinian state, but the existence of a Jewish state. Every time we've given up land, we faced terror. Israel must control the entire area from the river to the sea. A prime minister must be able to say no to even the best of friends, to protect our country. Translation (if needed): The speaker emphasizes the importance of Israel maintaining control over the entire region to prevent terrorism, and the need for a prime minister to be able to say no when necessary.

I am addressing President Biden from Israel. We will not cease the conflict in Gaza or allow Jews to resettle the entire area.

The speaker asks where Palestinians should seek accountability for their grievances. The second speaker states the U.S. will always stand up for human rights, and that is why the U.S. continues to endorse a two-state solution. They claim a two-state solution protects Israel’s identity as a Jewish and democratic state, and it will give the Palestinians a viable state of their own and fulfill their legitimate aspirations for dignity and self-determination. The first speaker repeats the question: where do they go?

The speaker says that, in the United States Congress, they will continue to fight for the people of Israel and for Israel’s existence. They add that Israel comes to them in their dreams, that they see Israel’s future, and that they know Israel will continue to exist for the Jewish people.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening. Work has resulted in movements in the region by Israel, prompted by advocacy for what needs to happen. Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening. The pursuit of what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where it stands on the need for this war to end will continue.

Speaker 0 asks for comments on Israel, and someone responds by saying that Israel should leave Palestine. Another person points out that the people in Palestine are occupied and it is their land. The question is raised about where they should go, and someone suggests they go back to Poland and Germany. Another person adds that they should go back to America and other places as well.

The speaker asks where people go to address problems. The other speaker states that the United States will always stand up for human rights. They endorse and call for a two-state solution to the long-running conflict because it protects Israel's identity as a Jewish and democratic state. It will also give the Palestinians a viable state of their own and fulfill their legitimate aspirations for dignity and self-determination. The speaker repeats the question of where people go to address problems.

We must continue to strive for peace and a two-state solution. Both Israelis and Palestinians deserve to live in safety, dignity, and peace.

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.

Israel, like other countries, makes its own decisions. The US does not dictate to Israel or any other country. We present what we believe are the good options. We stand up for what we believe in the briefing room. Translation: Israel and other countries have sovereignty to make their own decisions. The US does not impose its will on Israel or any other country. We present what we believe are the best options and stand up for them in the briefing room.

The speaker states to the Israeli leadership that they do not support expansionist ideas. They say the indigenous people of the land have rights that cannot be ignored, and that a fair solution must be found, not one dictated by any single group.