reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Free Palestine is a cult. What we're seeing with the Free Palestine Movement is that it is radicalizing people on both the far right and the far left, which is something that we don't see very often. I suspect we're going to be seeing it more because of the advent of social media and the internet. Free Palestine has never really been about Palestine. It's an anti Western movement. You need to be really careful if your kids are consuming this type of content. It's really misleading, but it's very convincing. On the outside, it is a very convincing movement to make people believe that Israel is evil and Palestinians are honorable and fighting for justice. I'm not saying that Palestinians are all bad people. And if you're starting to feel anti American sentiments or thinking that maybe you should go out and murder some strangers to free Palestine, seek help. Seriously, seek help.

In recent days, many Democrats and progressives have been awakened to the issue of antisemitism on the left. It is surprising that some people are more shocked by the dehumanizing language used by world leaders to describe Hamas than by the actions carried out by Hamas itself.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss a historic shift in American public opinion regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict. - Speaker 1 notes that public opinion on who voters sympathize with shifted dramatically in the wake of the current war. In October 2023, Americans favored Israel by 48 points; now, they favor the Palestinians by 1 point. He says he reviewed polls since the question began in the 1980s and that this is the first time Palestinians lead on this question, marking a historic shift away from the Israeli position toward the Palestinians. - He emphasizes that the shift was led by Democrats, moving from Democrats favoring Israel by 26 points to Palestinians by 46 points, describing it as a roughly 70-point swing and stating that, for the first time ever, more Americans sympathize with the Palestinians over the Israelis. - Speaker 0 adds that the shift is “a first that I have seen in my lifetime” and credits independent media and journalists reporting from Gaza for bringing images to social media, including images of civilians and alleged Israeli actions. He asserts that without on-the-ground reporting, people wouldn’t have seen certain images, asserts that journalists were killed by the IDF, and claims those images contributed to waking people up. - He contends that APAC is panicking, citing a new ad and a rebranding as “America first,” and argues Israel has lost the media war and the narrative, including some conservative and evangelical support (referencing Charlie Kirk’s base). - Speaker 1 details a parallel shift within the Republican Party, noting a significant age-based divide. Among Republicans over 50, they sympathize with Israel by 66 points; among those under 50, they sympathize with the Palestinians by 25 points. This creates about a 40-point gap, with younger Republicans leaning more toward the Palestinians than older Republicans. - Speaker 0 adds that Israel has hired pro-Israel influencers—paid about $7,000 per post—targeting the youth to reel back pro-Israel sentiment in the conservative youth vote. He notes these influencers were primarily young, implying a deliberate strategy to mobilize younger voters, while older voters are less in need of such outreach. - The speakers conclude that this combination of media exposure, shifts in party and demographic alignments, and targeted influencer campaigns constitutes a broad, historic realignment in American attitudes toward the conflict.

The discussion centers on a leaked document detailing private international focus groups and surveys funded by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) to test messaging for Israel after the war and to regain international legitimacy. The project included 15 focus groups (six in the United States, three in the United Kingdom, Germany, and France each), plus quantitative testing with 8,050 interviews (3,250 in the US, 1,200 in the UK, Germany, France, and Spain) as a baseline, and animatic testing with 5,600 interviews (4,000 in the US and 1,600 in the UK and Europe) to test specific messages, tone, and delivery. The aim is to determine how to shift global perceptions of Israel and avoid further isolation. The document, attributed to the Stagwell Group (Mark Penn’s firm) and the MFA, shows substantial investment in audience research, including focus groups and telephone interviews, to identify levers that could move public opinion from current baseline views toward greater international legitimacy for Israel. A striking takeaway cited is a recommendation to ramp up Islamophobia in messaging, arguing that when Israel is compared to Iran or Hamas, people tend to prefer Israel. The research also surveyed European attitudes toward Muslim immigrants and found underlying hostility in parts of Europe, which the MFA’s messaging strategy suggests Israel should lean into by contrasting itself with Hamas and Iran as standing up against a perceived threat. Key findings highlighted include: - International attitudes toward Israel are consistently worse in Europe (UK, France, Spain) than in the US, with Spain showing particularly negative views. Most Europeans support the Palestinians, except in Germany where support for Israel is stronger, though they recoil against both Hamas and Iran. - When Israel is compared to Hamas or Iran, Israel polls relatively better; when asked to choose between Palestinians and Israelis, Palestinians generally win, especially among younger cohorts. - The juxtaposition Israelis versus Palestinians is more favorable to Israel in the US than in Europe. In Europe (UK, France, Spain) there is greater favorability toward the Palestinians, while Germany and the US show more favorability toward Israel. - Youth attitudes show a shift: Gen Z in the UK and Germany are more likely to support Palestinians over Israel, with stark percentages (e.g., UK Gen Z 65-35, Germany Gen Z 63-37; in Spain, a near-universal tilt toward Palestinians). - Page-level cross-national comparisons show the most powerful countries (US, Germany) still leaning toward Israel, while the least powerful (Spain) lean toward the Palestinians. Gen Z across European countries shows increasing Palestinian support relative to older cohorts. - The document also notes misperceptions about casualty figures in Gaza: Spaniards 40,000; French 30,000; British 25,000; Germans and Americans 10,000. It also asks respondents whether those killed were mostly Hamas terrorists or civilians, with a majority in all regions believing civilians were mostly killed, including the US being the lowest but still majority civilian casualties believed. - If actual casualty numbers are higher than perceived, Israel believes attitudes could shift; the research tracks what people think about who was killed to anticipate messaging impact. Additional context: - The MFA’s Hasbara efforts have received substantial funding since October 7, fueling this extensive research program. - The document discusses potential post-war strategies, including the controversial idea of elevating ISIS-linked groups (Abu Shabab) to portray Hamas as more moderate, thereby arguing that no partners for peace exist and reshaping regional narratives—though this raises concerns about long-term consequences. - The discussion notes that the research was leaked and was originally intended to remain private, with the Commission of the Israeli MFA funding this line of propaganda-adjacent work. The conversation concludes with reflections on how the tone and content of messaging may evolve, acknowledging that some strategies may not move the US as much as other audiences, and noting the potential for a new chapter in the propaganda effort.

We have a generational issue with young people supporting Israel less. We need to address this quickly. The divide is not left vs. right but young vs. old. The language used by activists has shifted towards Iranian propaganda. We must act fast to counter this trend.

We have a generational issue with young people supporting Israel less. The next generation is influenced by Iranian propaganda, seen in groups like Students for Justice in Palestine. Their language changed quickly on October 8th, adopting anti-Israel rhetoric. This shift is concerning and needs attention. The focus should be on understanding why young people are swayed by Iran's influence.

Israel and its supporters deliberately foment hate and division in our society. I’ve noticed a lot of angry comments underneath my posts these past few days, which bizarrely mention the words Islam and Muslims completely out of the blue. Why don’t you turn your attention sometimes to the genocidal intent of the radical Muslims, or does that suit your racist narrative? Reads one tweet. What can you say about Islamic jihadist Muslims murdering thousands of Christians in Sudan and other parts of Africa, reads another. The Muslims must be eradicated, reads another. There are too many examples to quote here, but here’s what’s so funny about all this. I haven’t been saying anything about Islam or Muslims on Twitter. I’ve been tweeting about Israel. Hasparists just babble about Islam when they can’t defend Israel’s actions. It is not a coincidence that they’ve been doing this. In September, Drop Site News published a leaked polling report that had been commissioned by the Israeli government which found that while Israel’s reputation is crumbling throughout the Western world, one way to salvage it would be to foment panic about Muslims. Dropsight News reports the following: Israel’s best tactic to combat this, according to the study, is to foment fear of radical Islam and jihadism, which remains high, the research finds, By highlighting Israeli support for women’s rights and gay rights, while elevating concerns that Hamas wants to destroy all Jews and spread jihadism, Israeli support rebounded by an average of 20 points in each country. Especially once the situation in Gaza is resolved, the room for growth in all countries is very significant, the report concludes. So if you speak critically about Israel online and suddenly find your replies inundated with Zionists shrieking about Islam and Muslims, that’s why. Their research has concluded that convincing Westerners to hate Muslims is easier than convincing them to love Israel. In addition to committing genocide and starting wars and working to stomp out free speech throughout the Western world, Israel is also doing everything it can to make our society more racist and hateful. A foreign state is actively fomenting division and discord in Western countries in exactly the way Western Empire apologists claimed Putin was doing at the height of Russia hysteria. Because it’s a Western ally, though, nothing is being done to stop it. In addition to being evil and disgusting, this tactic is also just sloppy argumentation. Deflection is the lowest form of argument. Even if Islam really was as dangerous as they pretend it is, and even if Muslims really did present a threat to our society, pointing this out would not address a single criticism of Israel. Yelling Muslims bad does not magically erase Israel’s abuses or address the grievances of its critics. It just diverts attention to another target and says, Stop looking at Israel’s actions and hate those people instead. Mention Israel, and you’ll get Hosperists babbling about Islam. But Islam and Israel are not opposites, and the mention of one has no bearing on the other. One is a worldwide religion with nearly 2,000,000,000 adherents, while the other is a genocidal apartheid state, Framing the issue as a conflict between two diametrically opposed parties is a false dichotomy created by propagandists and manipulators. And that’s exactly the false dichotomy Netanyahu is trying to feed into when he tells Americans that Israel is in an alliance with Christianity against radical Shiite Islam and radical Sunni Islam, calling it our common Judeo Christian civilization’s battle. He’s working to foment fear of Islam among Americans to boost support for Israel. All this to manufacture consent for human butchery and apartheid. Israel could improve its support among Westerners by simply ending its genocidal atrocities in Gaza and ceasing to try to start a war between The US and Iran, but instead it’s working around the clock to foment racism and division while demanding increased censorship and authoritarianism to stomp out pro Palestine sentiment throughout Western society. Israel is doing this because it cannot exist in its present iteration as a state without nonstop violence and abuse. Under the political ideology known as Zionism, peace, justice, truth, and freedom are simply not an option.

Ashwin Rutanski speaks from the UAE, referencing the Nakba anniversary (1948), ongoing Israeli oppression of Palestinians, and claims that NATO capitals provide money, weapons, and diplomatic protection for these actions, with Washington treating Israeli impunity as a cornerstone of foreign policy. He also notes G7 finance ministers meeting in Paris and asks about the Trump Netanyahu war on Iran, including questions about its justification and motivations. Avi Schleim, Emeritus Professor of International Relations at the University of Oxford, says the Trump Netanyahu war on Iran is “unjustified, senseless, and foolish,” calling it unlawful and stating there was no Security Council resolution mandating war and no imminent threat from Iran to Israel or America. He argues the war was a decision by Trump and Netanyahu, with Netanyahu as the real architect, alleging Netanyahu dragged America into the conflict. Schleim connects the war’s consequences to suffering inflicted not only in Iran but also in Lebanon, alongside continued Gaza genocide and ethnic cleansing of the West Bank. He describes Israel as damaging America, America’s Gulf allies, international economy, and international law by dragging the U.S. into war. Rutanski asks whether it is really about Netanyahu given claims that 93% of Israeli Jews supported bombing Iran. Schleim replies that it is not just Netanyahu, stating Israeli society has moved right for 25 years since the second Intifada, becoming more overtly racist, with growing influence of religious Zionism on foreign policy. He says war is easier to sell than peace because peacemaking requires concessions, while attacking enemies is more popular. Schleim argues Netanyahu persuades the Israeli public that Iran poses an existential threat, which he rejects, citing claims that Iran has not attacked neighbors, has signed the nonproliferation treaty and submitted to international inspection, while Israel has not signed it and refuses international inspection; he also contrasts Iran renouncing nuclear weapons with Israel’s alleged possession of about 200 nuclear warheads. Rutanski asks whether Israel cares about reputational damage. Schleim says Israel cares mainly about American support, describing it as unconditional and therefore without consequences for Israel’s actions, including genocide in Gaza and intensified settler violence in the West Bank. He states that American backing has affected ceasefire interpretation and says Israel has devastated Lebanon—destroying whole villages in southern Lebanon, displacing 1,100,000 Lebanese refugees, and bombing civilian neighborhoods in Beirut, while targeting journalists and damaging hospitals and ambulances. He frames these actions as applying the Gaza “playbook” in southern Lebanon with immunity as long as the U.S. supports Israel. Rutanski cites polls showing disapproval among U.S. voters of Netanyahu and belief by many that Israel is committing genocide. Schleim argues a disconnect exists between Western governments and the public, saying people can see genocide “livestream” and that Gaza has been made uninhabitable. He says Western foreign policy will take time to catch up but trends are toward increased criticism of Israel, including within the U.S. among younger Jewish people. He adds that criticism is spreading to Republicans who he says are turning against Trump over Israel. Rutanski then asks Schleim about Britain’s role. Schleim says he is “absolutely appalled” by British complicity, citing a book by Peter Urban and describing actions including arms sales, intelligence flights over Gaza, and offering British bases in Cyprus and the UK for Israeli Air Force and U.S. supply for the Gaza war effort. He claims Britain has legal duties under the 1948 Genocide Convention to stop arms sales, stop buying Israeli military technology, and suspend the trade agreement, which he says Britain denies due to refusing to accept that Israel is committing genocide. Rutanski asks why European countries are involved. Schleim answers by arguing the claim is questionable and stating the main supporter is America. He says European support since 1948 was influenced by Holocaust guilt and by perceptions of Israel as an island of democracy in the 1950s, later describing Israel as widely viewed now as authoritarian, racist, and apartheid, and arguing Israel has made itself an international pariah through occupation, oppression, constant violence, and never-ending war. Rutanski mentions repression in the UK and asks whether those in power want to preserve support for Israel. Schleim says there is a powerful Israel lobby in Britain across both Conservative and Labour parties, and adds Germany’s repression is linked to Holocaust guilt. He discusses Palestine Action being designated as a terrorist organization, saying supporting it can lead to prison sentences of up to 14 years, while also describing a judicial review that found the prescription unlawful, followed by a government appeal. He then describes being asked to postpone a guest lecture at Liverpool Hope University, citing complaints from the local Jewish community about his presence on campus, which he says limited his academic freedom. He also claims mainstream media and the BBC fail to report Palestinian narratives, alleges BBC presenters are instructed to stop interviewees when genocide is mentioned, says he has not been interviewed on the BBC for two and a half years, and references his book “Genocide in Gaza,” which he says includes quotations from Israeli leaders. The show ends with condolences mentioned by Rutanski for those bereaved or affected by “NATO nation wars of aggression,” including Gaza and the mass killing in the Donbas, and announces a new season starting June 6.

The speaker discusses how the TikTok ban bill was introduced by a congressman who received significant contributions from Zionists, Google, and Palantir. They suggest a connection between the Israel lobby and the bill, as well as Zionists potentially buying TikTok. The speaker highlights censorship of pro-Palestine content on TikTok and the generational divide in support for Israel. They emphasize a "TikTok problem" for Zionists and the need to focus on the next generation. The speaker questions the government's narrative and suggests a focus on China.

"But October 7 in the Hamas raid in Southern Israel changed minds on this app. Explain how." "over 60% of the content that is pro Hamas, pro Palestine content, it's actually generated in Bangladesh, Malaysia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and then it is actually amplified in TikTok users' feeds in The United States." "the majority of the anti Israel content, it's actually generated and created overseas, and then the algorithm is tailored to push that content here in America." "it's not actually generated here in The United States. It's not a reflection of the sentiment here in The United States." "But think about the fact that in Israel, they have TikTok, and in Israel, they have manipulated the algorithm to show 90% of the sentiment is for pro Hamas in Israel." "Do you really think that Israelis after October 7 feel that that is the case?"

The TikTok ban is not about China but Israel, as seen through censorship of hashtags. Lawmakers claim China can suppress content and spy on users, but evidence suggests otherwise. Money from Israel lobbies influences votes on the bill. The ban threatens free speech and journalism on TikTok. Resistance grows stronger with oppression. The urgency to ban TikTok is due to Israel's influence and upcoming elections. The focus should be on uniting against this threat, not on left-right divides. Young people's support for Israel is not based on political affiliation. The need for action is urgent.

I teach at Duke University and observe that many college students today view the world through a lens where marginalized groups are always right. This mindset leads them to automatically support the underdog, even in complex situations like the conflict between Israel and Palestine. After October 7th, many young people quickly sided with Palestinians without fully understanding the situation, sometimes even supporting Hamas.

"But I also wanna point out that we have a major, major, major generational problem." "All the polling I've seen, ADL's polling, ICC's polling, independent polling suggests this is not a left right gap, folks." "The issue in The United States' support for Israel is not left and right." "It is young and old." "The numbers of young people looking to cabazes, you know, massacre was justified as shockingly and terrifyingly high." "We really have a TikTok problem, a Gen Z problem that our community needs to put." "It's the wrong game." "Last week, I'll just say, we saw a dramatic change in the language of the activists here in America on October 8."

Students in universities, whether American or on student visas, expressing support for Hamas should face serious consequences. This support is not about aiding Palestinians but endorsing terrorism. Their student visas should be revoked, and measures like reinstating the travel ban should be considered. The rise of anti-Semitism in the country is alarming and distressing for the Jewish community. Many individuals, particularly young people, seem unaware that Hamas represents terrorism at its worst.

Speaker 0 explains that Netanyahu evokes Jewish history in his religious text and sentiment to rally support for attacks, and that Nurode explains this increases right-wing sentiment in Israel. Speaker 1 notes that when Netanyahu announced the offensive against Iran, he did not just discuss threats but invoked Jewish history, drawing parallels with Jews rising up against Persian enslavement more than two thousand years ago. Speaker 2 adds: “My brothers and sisters, in two days, we celebrate the holiday of Purim. Two thousand five hundred years ago in ancient Persia, an enemy rose against us with the exact same goal of destroying our people.” Speaker 1 continues: “A day later, Netanyahu invoked scripture describing the government in Tehran as Amalek, the ultimate enemy in the Old Testament, the enemy whose memory and existence must be erased.” Speaker 2: “We read in this week's Torah portions. Remember what Amalek did to you. We remember and we act.” Speaker 1 remarks that this is not the first time Netanyahu has used the Amalek reference to justify violence against an adversary. In fact, his reference to Palestinians as Amalek was cited during hearings in the genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice. Speaker 0 states that inciting religious fervor is not unique to Netanyahu; it’s a popular tactic among right-wing and populist leaders to rally support, and it often pays off. She cites opinion polls to illustrate how widespread these sentiments are: a Hebrew University poll on Israel’s war on Gaza found 75% of Jewish Israelis believe there are no innocence in Gaza; a survey by the Institute for National Security released last month shows 78% of Israelis consider Iran a serious threat. Speaker 1 adds that mixing scripture with mainstream politics is playing with fire and has led to talk of a greater Israel spanning from the Euphrates to the Nile River and erasing existing Arab countries in the process, an ambition referenced not only by Netanyahu but also by the head of the opposition in Israel. Speaker 0 concludes with the attribution: Jahan Bin.

There is a generational divide in the US regarding support for Israel, with younger people showing high levels of support for actions like the Gaza massacre. The speaker emphasizes the need for the Asian community to address this issue quickly, as groups like Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voices for Peace have shifted their language to align with Iranian propaganda. This change was observed on October 8th, with a rapid shift in messaging. The speaker calls for urgent action to address this issue.

Over at the Patriot Prayer Network did a nice little compilation of my interview with Tim Pool... this literally twenty minute compilation which would blow your mind. Right now, Gen Z support for Israel is 24%. Charlie Kirk has been holding meetings to convince Gen Z influencers to support Israel. In 2018, Netanyahu himself sent a secret letter to the Qatari leadership. In that letter, he urged Qatar to deliver $30,000,000 a month to Gaza. So in May 2025, Netanyahu publicly admitted that since 2018, his government had allowed Qatar to transfer money to Hamas in Gaza, and that was according to his own request. That policy was approved by the full Israeli security cabinet. So if you believe Netanyahu himself, he went from asking Qatar to send money to Hamas to bombing Qatar for not extraditing Hamas. But the fact is now Bibi and the Israeli hard right government has a mandate I gotta be careful the way I say this. To they're gonna try to ethnically cleanse Gaza. Yep. I mean, that that's and I'm I don't use that term lightly. Israel is losing support at a tremendous rate among the young generation. Ackman ... had this meeting to basically bully Charlie Kirk into submission. Charlie Kirk walked away, refused offers of funding and also refused the offer to travel to Israel and meet with Netanyahu. From Aramov, he says Turkey took out Charlie because he spoke against Islam. Israel killed their greatest advocate among Gen Z.

There is a major generational problem regarding support for Israel in the United States. Polling shows that it is not a left-right divide, but rather a divide between young and old. Shockingly, a high number of young people justified the recent massacre. This highlights a problem with TikTok and Gen Z that our community needs to address urgently. We have been focusing on the wrong divide between left and right. The real issue lies with the next generation and how they are falling in line with Hamas and their accomplices. Activists in America dramatically changed their language on October 8th, aligning with Iranian propaganda. This shift was swift and concerning.

- Speaker 1 argues that many people involved in certain activities are motivated by bounties and money, suggesting that some might be doing it for personal gain rather than ideological reasons. They say: “a lot of these people are just sacks of shit that are going for a bounty,” and imply that some individuals could be MK Ultra, calling it “kinda cooler” than being a mercenary for a bounty. - They discuss the idea that bounties are paid by various actors, mentioning “billionaires and shit” and suggesting that “this works both ways.” They imply that anti-Israel sentiment could also be tied to people being paid. - The conversation shifts to media manipulation, attributing influence to Larry Ellison as a “shadow president” who is allegedly buying up the media. They imply this is to control the narrative after a crisis, describing the media consolidation as a response to a failure to manage public perception. - The speakers claim that the reason for frantic media buying is a loss of the next generation of trauma-absorbing minds, alleging that on TikTok, “these psychopaths bragged about crimes they did to people.” They assert that young people (referred to as “Zoomies” or “the next generation”) in America and elsewhere were exposed to woke programming, which the oligarchs allegedly fear will backfire on them. - They claim that Israel has not had woke programming for the last twelve years, using that as a marker to identify who is involved in the propaganda, stating Israel lacks awareness of sensitivities around gender issues and that this helps identify participants in the propaganda. - The discussion moves to a broader media and censorship critique, with Speaker 1 predicting that Barry Weiss being put in charge will not go well, referencing a town hall as evidence of a poorly received event. - The conversation also touches on personal safety concerns related to speaking out, noting that talking about these topics can lead to danger, including the potential for being killed. They reference Charlie Kirk and a Pegasus hack incident as examples of such risks, and mention a Bohemian Grove reference in relation to Jimmy. - Overall, the dialogue weaves together themes of bounty-driven participation, MK Ultra speculation, media consolidation by influential figures, the perceived weaponization of woke politics, generational media influence via TikTok, and personal safety concerns for public commentators.