reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 1 asserts there is no genocide in Gaza and that Palestine is a name invented by the Roman Empire. Speaker 0 states this view isn't shared by the rest of the world. Speaker 1 says he is glad Speaker 0 speaks for the rest of the world. Speaker 1 questions why he should listen to the United Nations, calling it a "clown show" that should be pushed into the Hudson River. He accuses the UN of creating child prostitution rackets in Africa and asks what it has done to solve anything of late. Speaker 0 asks what Speaker 1 thinks of the UN. Speaker 1 questions Speaker 0's claim to represent the world's opinion.

The speaker questions the understanding of those who chant "free Palestine," explaining that it actually means the end of Israel's existence. They argue that Israel is the only Jewish state and that Jews and Arabs live there peacefully. They express concern about what would happen if Hamas took control of Israel and criticize the support for Hamas despite their oppressive actions. The speaker also highlights the assistance Israel provides to Gaza and questions why Hamas does not provide basic necessities. They argue that supporting Israel is the path to peace. Another speaker shares their experiences in Israel, including the security measures and restrictions faced by Israelis. They express doubt in the two-state solution and believe that Israeli control is necessary for the region's stability. Another speaker discusses the aid provided to Palestine by the US and challenges the notion that all aid goes to Israel. They highlight the significant amount of assistance given to Palestine and the recent announcement of additional humanitarian aid.

The speaker describes multiple aspects of Israel’s actions and questions whether they are proportional, temporary, legal, and equal under the law: Israel’s bombings of Gaza are framed as not proportional; Israel’s occupation of the West Bank is framed as not temporary; Israel’s drive to cleanse East Jerusalem neighborhoods from Palestinians is framed as not legal; and Israel’s oppression of Palestinian citizens as second class is framed as not equal treatment under the law. The speaker concludes that these actions are “not proportional,” “not temporary,” “not legal,” and “not equal,” adding that “it’s not complicated.” The speaker urges viewers to “believe your eyes” and “follow your conscience,” and states that the situation “looks like apartheid” because “it is apartheid.”

The speaker expresses their belief that the ambassador should be expelled from the country due to the policies of their state. They argue that the ambassador's state is not behaving as a normal state and questions their actions in relation to the killings of innocent people in Gaza, the seizure of Palestinian land, and the denial of basic rights to Palestinians. The speaker also criticizes the Israeli state's law of return, which they view as a racist apartheid law. They question why the Israeli state continues to seize land designated for Palestinians if they are serious about peace. The speaker concludes by accusing the Israeli state of practicing racism and apartheid through their checkpoints and barriers.

The speaker examines the claim of ethnic cleansing by Israel against Palestinians by presenting population statistics. They highlight the significant decrease in Jewish populations in various Arab countries since 1948, while the Arab population in Israel has increased. The Jewish population in Morocco, Algeria, Indonesia, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon has drastically declined, while the Arab population in Israel has grown to over 2 million. The speaker questions who is actually engaging in ethnic cleansing based on these statistics.

A Jewish speaker opposes Zionism, stating that it is not anti-Semitism to be against it. They share personal experiences of facing backlash for their beliefs. They explain that Zionism is a movement that started 150 years ago by Jews who were not practicing their religion and wanted a homeland. However, Judaism forbids having their own state. They highlight the historical support and acceptance Jews received from Muslim countries. The speaker criticizes the Zionist movement for disregarding the rights of Palestinians and accuses them of using PR tactics and political pressure to silence opposition. They emphasize their belief in coexistence with Muslims and express empathy for Palestinian suffering.

Speaker 1 states there is no genocide in Gaza and that Palestine is a name invented by the Roman Empire. Speaker 0 says this view is not shared by the rest of the world. Speaker 1 responds that they are glad Speaker 0 speaks for the rest of the world. Speaker 0 mentions the United Nations General Assembly. Speaker 1 says the United Nations sends people in blue helmets to rape little girls in Africa and that the United Nations could be pushed into the Hudson. Speaker 0 asks what Speaker 1 thinks of the UN. Speaker 1 questions Speaker 0's claim to represent the world's opinion.

For 5000 years, Jewish people faced persecution, mainly from white European Christians. Palestinians didn't contribute to atrocities like Auschwitz or turning away Jewish refugees. The real enemy is white Christian Europeans, not Palestinians. The question remains: why are 2 million Palestinians in an open-air prison?

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 expresses their belief that the ambassador should be expelled from the country due to the policies of their state. They argue that the ambassador's state is not behaving as a normal state and questions their actions in relation to the killings of innocent people in Gaza, the seizure of Palestinian land, and the denial of basic rights to Palestinians. The speaker also criticizes the Israeli state's Law of Return, which they view as a racist apartheid law. They question why the Israeli state continues to seize land designated for Palestinians if they are serious about peace. The speaker concludes by accusing the Israeli state of practicing racism and apartheid through their checkpoints and barriers.

In Brussels, the speaker expresses gratitude for the European Parliament's support for Palestinians. However, they highlight the irony of European politicians ignoring the oppression Palestinians face from their own authorities and neighboring countries. The speaker acknowledges Israel's flaws but emphasizes the jobs and stability it provides Palestinians. They argue that justice cannot be achieved by denying justice to the Jewish community. The speaker criticizes the European Parliament's support for the BDS movement, which they believe harms both Palestinians and Israelis. They call for a change in approach, urging acceptance and peace with Israel.

The speaker clarifies that they are not accusing Israelis of genocide, but they provide evidence of war crimes committed against Palestinian civilians, including murder and starvation in Gaza. They express surprise that Israeli leaders would discuss Palestinians in such a manner, considering the Holocaust and the suffering endured by Jews in Europe.

Israel's 1.5 million Arabs have full voting and election rights, work in various professions, and serve on the Supreme Court. The speaker questions the Arab states about the number of Jews living in their countries, highlighting the significant Jewish populations that once existed in Algeria, Egypt, Syria, and Iraq. They challenge the notion of apartheid by pointing out the absence of Jews in these countries and question why Israel is excluded from the UN Commission on the Middle East. The speaker questions the singling out of Israel and asks where the real apartheid lies.

The speaker asserts that the singling out of Israel is a moral stain on the United Nations, rendering it contemptible. They claim that the UN is a "House of Darkness" for the Palestinians, alleging an automatic majority exists to demonize Israel. The speaker contends that the UN is an anti-Israel "flat earth society" where any false charge against Israel can gain majority support. They state that more resolutions have been passed against Israel in the last decade at the UN.

Israel is often accused of being an apartheid state and committing ethnic genocide, but this doesn't align with the reality. Around 25% of the Israeli population is Arab, with over 20% being Muslims. As an Arab Muslim myself, I can attest that we have equal rights, including access to welfare, education, and healthcare. Israel made education mandatory for all children, ensuring that even girls receive an education. Without Israel, I would likely be illiterate and impoverished. I have an electrical engineering degree and a master's from a central university. It's important to read the facts before making such claims, especially when they come from intelligent students at elite universities.

The speaker questions the Arab states about the disappearance of Jews in their countries. They mention the significant Jewish populations that used to exist in Algeria, Egypt, Syria, and Iraq. They criticize the UN Commission on the Middle East for excluding Israel and question the focus on singling out the Jewish state. The speaker repeatedly asks where the real apartheid is and why the meeting only targets Israel.

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.

I'm an Israeli patriot who cares about Israel, but I believe there is no symmetry or conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. Instead, there is a brutal Israeli occupation that must end. The regime in our backyard is one of the most cruel and brutal tyrannies on Earth, resembling apartheid. In the occupied territories, one group has all the rights while the other has none. Visit the Jordan Valley to witness the stark contrast between prosperous Israeli settlements and the Palestinians living without basic necessities or rights. It's clear that this is apartheid, and no one can deny it.

This debate concerns racism and a double standard regarding Jews. Anti-Zionism equates to being against Jews. Smeti Hassan is accused of lying about Zionism to cover his antisemitism. Anti-Zionists rely on modern blood libels. Israel's existence is a decolonization success story after Arab imperialism, Islamic conquest, and British colonialism. In 1948, 700,000 Arabs escaped fighting during an attack by Arab armies, while those who remained became Israeli citizens; the Arab population has since increased tenfold. Ethnic cleansing occurred against Jews expelled from Arab countries. Arabs in Israel, 20% of the population, are free and represented in Israeli society. Claims of apartheid conflate Arab citizens of Israel with Arabs under the Palestinian Authority. Accusations of genocide against Jews invert reality. October 7th was the latest in a history of genocidal acts by Arabs against Jews. Hamas embeds terror infrastructure in civilian areas, using civilians as human shields. The IDF takes measures to prevent civilian casualties. The aim of Hamas is to survive by pressuring Jews to cease self-defense. Voting for the opposition supports Hamas' anti-Zionist aim.

The speaker, an Arab citizen of Israel, challenges the claims of apartheid and ethnic genocide in Israel. They point out that 25% of the Israeli population is Arab, with over 20% being Muslims. They emphasize that Arab citizens have equal rights, including welfare, education, and healthcare. The speaker shares their personal story of being born into a Bedouin family, where women were not allowed to go to school. However, after Israel's founding, education became mandatory for all children, including girls. The speaker highlights their own achievements, holding an electrical engineering degree and a master's from Stanford University. They argue that Israel has provided them with opportunities and that claims of apartheid and genocide do not align with the reality. The speaker urges people to seek out the facts before making such claims.

The speaker claims that Palestinians play the victim card and have done so for 70 years. They state that Israel was willing to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza in 2000, but Yasser Arafat rejected the offer because the revolution has no purpose other than itself. The speaker accuses some individuals of being con artists seeking money and power, using Arab and Jewish children.

The speaker criticizes Israel for the treatment of Palestinians, comparing it to apartheid in South Africa. They argue that Israel is motivated by a desire to acquire Palestinian land and exclude Palestinians from their own property. They highlight the lack of awareness and debate on this issue in the United States. The second speaker agrees and wishes for more open discussion. They ask about the responsibility of both Israelis and Palestinians in the conflict. The first speaker blames the conflict on Israel's occupation of Palestinian land, which violates international resolutions and commitments. They acknowledge acts of violence by Palestinians but do not excuse them.

Speaker 0 argues that Iran, despite being the greatest enemy of Israel, treats Jewish people living there as ordinary citizens and protects them in the midst of war. They claim that there are 35,000 Jewish people in Iran today and that they enjoy a “golden life,” with no problems during the conflict. According to the speaker, Iranians do not hate Jews; they have a problem with the occupation. The message repeated is that “we are not against Jews. We are against the occupation,” and that this stance is stated repeatedly in the media. The speaker contends that mainstream media are under Zionist influence and attempt to smear people with anti-Semitism, labeling criticisms of Israel as Nazis or anti-Semitic, even when the speaker asserts these criticisms are unrelated to anti-Semitism. The speaker questions why the media do not highlight a contrasting point: that Jewish people in Iran are living under missiles but are living freely, with access to schools, high schools, and all other institutes. They point to a Jewish hospital in Iran that is funded completely by the government and ask why this is not seen in the news. Overall, the speaker asserts a discrepancy between the situation of Jews in Iran and what is portrayed in the media, suggesting that the public is not being informed about the reality of Jewish life in Iran—its safety, institutions, and government support—while focusing on accusations of anti-Semitism and Nazi imagery. They emphasize that Iranians’ stance is not against Jews but against the occupation, and they critique the media for not presenting the full context of Jews living in Iran.

The speaker questions the concept of the "right to return," arguing that historically, nations have always pillaged other countries without restitution. They claim Rhodesia and the Empire were taken and not given back. They believe singling out Israel as a pariah state is unfair, stating what Israel has was given, not taken. The speaker criticizes the United Nations as corrupt and compares its usefulness to the Eurovision Song Contest. They highlight the disproportionate number of resolutions against Israel compared to other nations like Syria, China, and Russia, even on issues like women's rights, while ignoring countries with oppressive practices. They suggest this situation is absurd and ripe for satire.

The speaker addresses Tucker, noting a perceived "obsession with Israel" when discussing foreign countries, unlike when discussing China, Japan, the UK, or France. The speaker claims that when Israel is mentioned, the question arises: "What about the Jews?" The speaker anticipates being labeled antisemitic for raising this point. The speaker denies directly asking if Jews control foreign policy, but the other person insists that is exactly what the speaker implied.