reSee.it - Related Video Feed

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

This conversation centers on Israel, lobbying, and US policy. Speaker 0 says he’s been very pro Israel and defender of its right to defend itself, but has 'no skin whatsoever in defending any lobbyist group,' and has declined repeated invitations to go to Israel. He notes mounting pressure to stay aligned and that he’s not on Hamas’ side, though his views have shifted since 10/08/23. Speaker 1 explains APAC is 'not registered under FARA' and describes freshman trips to Israel, meetings with government members. He notes that '3.8, billion dollars in funding for Israel' is an annual decision, that Israel is 'less than 400,000,000,000 in debt,' and that Israelis have 'government funded health care' and 'government funded college.' He questions why the US funds this given its own economic strain, citing that 'we buy money from your defense contractors' and that Israel can buy from Israeli defense contractors.

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.

The speaker says the United States is Israel's last ally besides the UK and that Americans lack perspective due to lies from the political class and media. Citing Haley's 2023 remark: '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.' They assert: 'Israel could not survive without The United States' and that '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.' They claim Haley was never asked to explain how that could be true, and warn that discussing geopolitics invites accusations of antisemitism, creating a 'state of perpetual intimidation' and no honest conversation.

“If their government came out and said, we have a five year plan to decouple from USAID, would that help people's view of Israel if they said, hey, we want to be self reliant? Absolutely.” “We're now gonna decouple over the next five years and and basically transition.” “319,000,000,000 being sent to Israel over all these years, that's comparable to the amount we've sent to Ukraine.” “I believe Israel has a right to exist. I believe that they are the only state in that region with the right to exist.” “But why are we treating them differently than any other ally? Should we not be judging them, holding them to the same standard?” “Do you find it persuasive when the Israeli tourism board is bragging about how many gay pride parades they have in Tel Aviv?” “No.”

1) Global perspective: “Israel is a tiny country in the Middle East, not critical to our national security, by the way.” “Two THAAD missile batteries in Israel… one quarter of the world’s total supply.” “The United States has spent at minimum $30,000,000,000 defending Israel.” “Over the course of its existence, the United States has put 300,000,000,000 into supporting Israel.” “India and China combined represent more than a third of the entire world’s population.” 2) Self-respect and client state: “get some freaking self respect and stop being ordered around by a client state.” “IDF officers in the Pentagon… barging into meetings, giving orders.” Netanyahu: “I control Donald Trump.” 3) Citizenship and lobbying: “APAC has to register under FAIR, the foreign agent registration act of the nineteen thirties.” “No dual citizenship.” “You are not allowed to serve in a foreign military without losing your American citizenship.” “expel everyone who’s not a citizen from the country.” 4) Theology: “The chosen people in Christianity are those who choose Jesus.” “That is not Christianity. It is heresy.”

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.”

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.

Speaker 0 argues that "Israel's our greatest ally. We should never ask anything of them." They echo: "Protecting Israel's most important thing. They're our only real ally." They question, "If they're our only real ally, why does Israel have a long history of transferring military technology, including American military technology to China? To China?" and ask, "Why is China running the Port Of Haifa, Israel's biggest port?" They claim "From Israel's perspective, we're not a close ally" and "The loyalty is not requited. It's one way." They say Netanyahu "has pushed it too far" and that "the governor of Israel, in particular, the prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has pushed it too far." They add "I control Donald Trump. I control the United States Congress. I control The United States." They cite Trump on West Bank annexation: "No. I will not allow it. It's not gonna happen." and "I will not allow Israel to annex the West Bank." The speaker concludes "It's been enough. It's time to stop" and that "This is why Donald Trump has lost support over this Israel question."

Online discussion about Israel splits into two camps: pro- and anti-Jewish rhetoric, with few voices urging secular perspective. In the US, debate mirrors this, though Israel is geopolitically small and not critical to American security. The speaker offers four fixes: 1) Perspective: the US is a 350-million powerhouse; Israel 9 million with few resources. Two THAAD batteries, a quarter of world’s supply, are in Israel; since 10/07/2023 the US has spent at least $30 billion defending Israel; total aid to Israel about $300 billion; Egypt’s aid occurs at Israel’s request. 2) Self-respect: stop being bossed by a client state; Pollard, USS Liberty, Israeli officers; Netanyahu interference; Trump pushing back on annexation. 3) Citizenship: end dual citizenship; divest from foreign military service; APAC registration; disclose foreign influence. 4) Theology: Christianity’s universal message; critique of support for Israel as heresy; the chosen are those who choose Jesus; warns against using religion to justify killing innocents.

Israel is a democracy and an ally. One speaker believes Israel has a powerful stranglehold on the American government, controlling members of the House and Senate. They claim Israel has the U.S. involved in wars of little or no interest, bankrupting the nation and resulting in American children returning in body bags. The speaker asserts that Israel controls much of U.S. foreign and domestic policy, influencing the media and commerce, and that they "own the congress." They allege Wolfowitz, as under secretary of defense, manipulated President Bush to go back into Iraq and pushed to move into Iran. When asked if they are an anti-Semite, the speaker denies it, stating that this is what they will say. They claim the U.S. has a one-sided foreign policy in the Mideast, alienating Arabs who then export violence to America. They state Israel gets approximately $15 billion a year from American taxpayers, which is $30,000 for every man, woman, and child.

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."

Speaker claims: "Israel has an overwhelming lobby over the United States government, and we have unconditionally supported them." He cites "BB Netanyahu came to our congress in the nineties, told us a list of countries that we need to take out. Some were Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, etcetera." He adds "Through those wars, we have lost trillions of dollars" and "We have lost American servicemen." He asserts "They don't teach about the USS Liberty, where Israel literally came, blew up an American ship because they want us to get in their war with, Egypt and they don't teach that in school." He asks "Why is there this societal taboo around criticisms of Israel? For example, APAC doesn't have to register as a foreign lobby, but like the Australia lobby does. And the it just That should be changed. I That should be corrected." Finally, "Look. I I am not gonna say Israel should have any special privileges. None."

Online Israel discourse splits into two extremes: 'deranged Taliban level ethno narcissists' and 'those who hate Jews'—with few conventional Christian voices urging a secular, non-judgmental stance. The four steps to health: 1) Global perspective: US 350,000,000 with vast resources; Israel 9,000,000 with no meaningful resources; 'two THAAD missile batteries in Israel... a quarter of the world's total supply.' Since 10/07/2023, 'the United States has spent at minimum $30,000,000,000 defending Israel' and around $300,000,000,000 over its existence; Egypt is also involved; India and China rivals. 2) Self-respect: stop being ordered around by a client state; Netanyahu says 'I control Donald Trump' and 'I control The United States Congress.' 3) Citizenship: restore equality; end dual citizenship; 'APAC should register under FARA.' 4) Theology: reject Christian claims that DNA-based chosenness is legitimate; 'the chosen people are those who choose Jesus' and 'God will pull the plug on us' if you don't support Israel.

Speaker 0 says a piece about Israel’s “obscene treatment” of Speaker 0’s country has an obvious takeaway that America’s “special ally is not actually an ally,” and that NBC News did not want readers to realize this. Speaker 0 claims the report’s authors repeatedly inserted “globalist propaganda” into the story, including the neocon talking point that Israelis are America’s “special friends,” while still presenting “eye-opening” information about Israel spying. Speaker 0 argues that throughout the entire NBC News piece, there is continued praise for Israel as “our greatest ally” and “special friend.” Speaker 1 says the piece lays praise on Israel and is about Israel spying, which they find “reprehensible.” Speaker 1 describes decades of belief that Israel is America’s best ally, an “island of democracy” amid “sea of chaos” in the Middle East, and that many Jewish people Speaker 1 personally knew seemed “like really good people.” Speaker 1 says that as “growing physical evidence” has emerged that Israel is “not quite who we thought they were” and that Israel “definitely” abuses America, the situation has become normalized. Speaker 1 claims that even when things have come out, “no action has been taken,” leading Israel to be “a little bit more bold,” doing actions “out in the open.” Speaker 1 cites an example involving Netanyahu and Lebanon: Speaker 1 says Netanyahu stated that a stop to fighting in Lebanon is a “non-negotiable requirement” for Iran to end the war, and that Speaker 1 believes Netanyahu will “do what I want anyway,” even if President Trump intervenes. Speaker 1 says Speaker 1 expects Trump may “hold off for a day or two,” but that Israel “they’re fighting again today.” Speaker 1 asks why the U.S. continues to support Israel and provide it with ammunition, weapons, political cover, and diplomatic cover “to keep doing things directly antithetical to our interests?” Speaker 0 responds, “It’s so frustrating.”

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 US support for Israel, with Speaker 0 stating that the US provides Israel with $3 billion annually in military aid, which benefits US national security through intelligence sharing, particularly from Mossad. Speaker 1 questions the cost of military actions to protect Israel and whether Israel spies on the US, including the president. Speaker 0 acknowledges that allies spy on each other and defends the alliance with Israel as beneficial for the US. The conversation shifts to AIPAC, with Speaker 1 questioning whether it lobbies on behalf of the Israeli government and why it isn't registered as a foreign lobby. Speaker 0 denies this, stating that AIPAC is an American lobby that promotes a strong US-Israeli relationship. Speaker 1 suggests AIPAC's goals are shaped by the Israeli government, while Speaker 0 denies coordination and accuses Speaker 1 of being obsessed with Israel. Speaker 1 denies being anti-Semitic and defends their right to question foreign influence on US politics.

The speaker argues that the United States has, for about a century, supported Israel not only for strategic reasons but through a broad, coordinated influence network. The question is raised: why have we fought regime-change wars on Israel’s behalf, why do we back Israel in Gaza, and why do we provide foreign aid? The speaker states the answer is not solely because of APAC. The central claim is that there exists a vast network inside the United States—a “fifth column.” This network stretches from Silicon Valley and Stanford on the West Coast to Harvard and Columbia on the East Coast, including major businesses like BlackRock and large hedge funds, mainstream media, banking and finance, and Hollywood, all the way to Washington, D.C. through lobbying groups such as APAC and J Street and mega donors like Sheldon Adelson. The speaker describes this as a Jewish oligarchy that operates across industries and elite sectors, working either directly under Israeli intelligence or on behalf of Israel, to push America to support Israel’s well-being. The justification offered is that because they are Jewish, they care about the Jewish state; because they are Jewish, they have a special allegiance to Israel. The speaker asserts that after October 7, there was particular sympathy, and influence was used in various spheres—CBS, Harvard, Columbia, Silicon Valley, government, and Congress. The reference is made to a representative who served in the IDF and appeared in his IDF uniform, illustrating the claimed special affinity. The argument continues that when called upon, this network uses its influence across media, finance, academia, Hollywood, technology, and government. The stated purpose of this influence is to benefit their Jewish community at large and to benefit Israel.

Speaker argues that "And that suits the Israelis just fine." They question how much antisemitic content about Israel online is organic, noting there are "haters" and asking "how much of it is not organic at all?" They contend that some messaging is "being ginned up on purpose to make legitimate questions about the US government's relationship with the government of Israel seem like crackpot stuff, like hate, like David Duke level lunacy?" They add, "Probably some because it serves their interest." They insist the "true villain here" is not "the state of Israel, the Jews" but "the United States" and its leaders, who are "putting up with this." Israel is "a small country with very limited resources" trying to serve its own interests. "You'd think every country would act that way, and most do," yet "there are some that don't, and ours would top that list."

In this video, I will prove to you that Israel is ruling the American government. Since World War II, The United States has given over $260,000,000,000 in aid to Israel, more than to any other country in the entire world. The US sends $3,800,000,000 to Israel every year—about $10,000,000 every single day—for fighter jets, bombs, tanks, and missile defense systems like the Iron Dome. In 2016, The US signed the largest military aid deal in American history, a $38,000,000,000 package over ten years, locked in, guaranteed, no matter who sits in the White House. Much of this money must be spent on American defense companies. Iron Dome has received over $2,600,000,000 in US funding since 2011. APAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, is described as 'the most powerful foreign policy lobby in Washington.' In the twenty twenty two midterms alone, pro Israel groups poured over 30,000,000 into campaign donations. APAC's Super PAC, the United Democracy Project, spent millions to defeat critics like Donna Edwards and Andy Levin. The question remains: Who's ruling who?

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.

Two main online camps: ethnonarcissists who equate criticism of Israel with blood libel, and anti-Semites who condemn Jews by virtue of Jewishness. Few conventional Christians offer a secular, non-judgmental view. In the US, the debate mirrors this, though Israel is small and not critical to our national security, yet receives outsized attention and aid. There are two THAAD batteries in Israel—"a quarter of the world's total supply"—and since 10/07/2023 the US has spent at least $30,000,000,000 defending Israel, with about $300,000,000,000 total historically. Critics cite Nikki Haley's "The United States needs Israel" and Netanyahu's "I control Donald Trump." Four proposed fixes: 1) global perspective; 2) self-respect and stop being ordered around by a client state; 3) restore citizenship (no dual citizenship; foreign military service); 4) correct Christian theology, rejecting DNA-based chosenness as heresy.

Speaker 0 expresses the belief that as long as Israel exists and is supported by America, there will always be Muslims who pose a threat and seek to harm us. Speaker 1 disagrees, stating that they do not support Israel and do not believe it is worth American lives or dollars. Speaker 0 questions this stance, arguing that Israel is not comparable to other countries like Saudi Arabia. Speaker 1 clarifies that their main concern is the survival of the United States and expresses concern about the influence of APAC and the lobby on American support for Israeli actions.

The video argues that Israel is effectively ruling the American government, presenting a connected web of history, money, politics, religion, and power to explain the relationship. It starts with the numbers: since World War II, the United States has given over $260,000,000,000 in aid to Israel, more than to any other country in the world. This aid is a pipeline of US taxpayer money into Israel’s military machine, totaling $3,800,000,000 each year (about $10,000,000 every day), funding fighter jets, bombs, tanks, and missile defense systems like the Iron Dome. The 2016 initiative under President Obama was a $38,000,000,000 package over ten years, guaranteed regardless of who sits in the White House, ensuring Israel’s access to next-generation military hardware while Americans debate domestic needs. A significant portion of this aid is required by law to be spent on American defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon, meaning Israel gets the weapons while U.S. taxpayers foot the bill. The F-35 stealth fighter jet, costing around $80,000,000 each, has been supplied to Israel, alongside the Iron Dome, which has received over $2,600,000,000 in US funding since 2000. Critics note this funding could have supported US infrastructure repair, which is described as costing trillions of dollars to fix. The video contrasts this with domestic needs, citing half a million Americans homeless and tens of millions without health insurance. The narrative expands to the political ecosystem: APAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) is described as one of the most powerful foreign policy lobby groups in Washington, with annual conferences drawing thousands and presidents pledging loyalty on stage. In the 2022 midterms, pro-Israel groups allegedly poured over $30,000,000 into campaigns; APAC’s United Democracy Project is said to have spent millions to defeat candidates who criticized unconditional US support for Israel. It cites examples like Donna Edwards and Andy Levin as Democrats targeted for questioning U.S. policy toward Israel. The video asserts that the message is: step out of line, and you’re gone. Other organizations are named as part of the broader lobby, including Christians United for Israel led by John Hagee, and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), with various PACs purportedly funneling millions into local elections. Together, these groups are characterized as shaping U.S. foreign policy more than think tanks, business lobbies, or grassroots movements, forming what scholars John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt have called the Israel lobby, which also influences media and academia through outlets and think tanks that frame Israel as America’s indispensable ally. A narrative layer is described: Israel is marketed as the only democracy in the Middle East, while Palestinians are often erased or portrayed as aggressors. The video notes presidential consistency from Reagan to Trump, and from Clinton to Biden, with the refrain that America stands with Israel. Religion compounds influence, with evangelical groups viewing Israel’s survival as biblical prophecy, and the 2018 move of the US embassy to Jerusalem is framed as a concession to evangelical voters. The implications are political: the contradiction of US defending democracy while backing a system described as apartheid and ongoing bombings. The video asks who is ruling whom, suggesting blind support fuels anti-American sentiment globally, and that the question extends beyond Palestine to America’s own future. It ends by questioning whose interests Washington is really serving—its people or someone else.