reSee.it - Related Video Feed

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.

NBC News reports that U.S. intelligence is worried about Israelis spying on top Trump administration officials, a concern the speakers say has long been known and reported. One speaker says they spoke with or communicated with an individual named as being among those targeted for espionage and that there is “a lot of anger in the Pentagon” that the government is not doing more. The speaker says at least one report indicated the concern had been elevated to critical after initially being high, while “nothing has been done at all.” The speaker adds that they are “lucky we’re even getting the reports out.” The speaker cites names allegedly involved in the espionage targeting, including Steve Witkoff, saying it is striking because Witkoff is described as being on the phone during negotiations with Benjamin Netanyahu. The speaker also references other Pentagon officials mentioned in the reporting, including officials characterized as “pro-American” and “America first folks,” stating this is “not a surprise.” The speaker emphasizes that the reported activity goes beyond spying and is “espionage,” describing it as the kind of action that would prompt immediate crisis-level response if conducted by another country against senior U.S. administration officials. They say no action has been taken to stop it, and that this is contributing to a narrative about who is “calling the shots.” The speaker also highlights a detail of timing and suppression: the information “apparently … hit the office of the Director of National Intelligence,” but was reportedly suppressed until after Congress voted on Section 224 of the NDAA, which the speaker says would link and codify the American military with the Israeli military. The speaker says it was released after that vote. They further claim that Congress is portrayed as willing participants in the arrangement, implying that the priority is linking Israel into the U.S. military structure. The speaker attributes to Benjamin Netanyahu personal priority for such a partnership, saying Netanyahu has stated that the U.S. funding of $3.8 billion is not necessary because the militaries will be linked and that the U.S. would wean off due to the partnership. The speaker concludes by arguing that such a military linkage should not occur, asserting it benefits Israel at America’s expense and saying U.S. blood has been shed because of the war they associate with Netanyahu, which they describe as directly against American interest. The speaker calls for the arrangement to end.

“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.”

"it's not antisemitic to talk about this, and it's not antisemitic to question any foreign country's government secular government, including Israel." "We fund a lot of other countries' borders better than we fund our own." "it's over $800,000,000,000,000, actually, close to 900,000,000,000,000 is the total bill." "the 500,000,000 for Israel." "They already received $3,400,000,000 annually every single year through the State Department." "Taiwan for 500,000,000 and for Jordan for 500,000,000 as well." "There's 15,000,000 in there for AIDS prevention education activities." "America's broke. We're $37,000,000,000,000 in debt." "we just can't pay for the world anymore." "Not being an isolationist. That's actually being smart and serving the people that that pay for all of this stuff and have been chained into 37,000,000,000,000 in debt." "And that's not being mean to foreign people and foreign countries, but America's broke."

Speaker 0 argues that on a public policy level, reparative policies are not as effective as people want. He cites Holocaust reparations from Germany as an example, noting there was a huge debate in Israel over whether survivors should accept reparations, with the view that accepting payments could be seen as expiating past sins or buying off history. He asserts that reparations are not the reason Israel has become economically successful; rather, success comes from a determined effort to meet the meritocratic standards of success. He then discusses US foreign assistance to Israel, calling it a bargain for the United States because Israel “doesn’t need the money,” and contrasts this with other fiscal considerations. He mentions a claim that the black community would gladly take foreign assistance, though he notes he cannot speak for them. He provides a related financial context: “it’s like $3,000,000,000 a year” in some form of aid, and adds comparative U.S. military expenditure on bases abroad—“we spend $6,000,000,000 a year on our military bases in Japan, $5,000,000,000 a year on our military bases in Germany.” He emphasizes that a substantial amount of U.S. money helps other countries and underlines that Israel does not simply receive money but receives military product produced in the United States. The speaker explains that the relationship includes intelligence sharing and Israel’s development of its own technology, which the U.S. benefits from through disseminating tech they develop. He gives a concrete example: helmets used by F-35 pilots, noting these are Israeli-developed helmets, illustrating technology add-ons that the U.S. can leverage. He insists that the notion of a zero-sum dynamic—money sent out with nothing in return—is inaccurate, because the arrangement yields reciprocal benefits through defense collaboration and technology development.

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.”

With the money that we, the taxpayers, have given Israel over the last seventy five years, they are now able to give families a monthly child allowance for each child they have, income support, unemployment benefits, housing assistance, free health care, and free education through university. So I ask again, why are we okay making it possible for Israelis to do that. But when it comes to our country, a whole group of people are totally against the idea of universal health care and free education. I need someone to explain to me why it's okay to fund their abilities to do that. No ally of The United States should be allowed to do or say whatever they want without any consequences from us, not when we give them billions of dollars every single year. And none of what I'm saying is even delving into the fact that what the Israeli government is doing with all the military assistance that we've given them.

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.

He's using The United States, its economy and its military power for his own ends. What's remarkable to me is how effective he's been at that and how contemptuous he is. I don't know if you've seen this video of him. He asked the journalist to turn off the camera, and the journalist left it running. And he goes, '80% of Americans this is an old one. 80% of Americans support us.' It's not only common, it's generally the rule. And for Christianity especially, which is very galling. It's not 3,000,000,000 a year, it's tens of billions a year. BB is completely evil and completely destructive. He's not the only world leader who's evil and destructive by the way, again, but he is. And he's hurting The United States and he's destroying his own country and I think he imperils the world. Ted Cruz says, 'I was elected. My main goal was to help Israel.' This is deranged. Where's our self respect? I can't control Bibi Netanyahu. You cannot reelect the Ted Cruz. Not because they're evil, but because they've betrayed their most basic commitment, which is to our country.

Speaker 0 asserts that Netanyahu was continually helping Hamas to survive. Speaker 1 claims that while Netanyahu was under investigation, he arranged for Hamas to receive $35,000,000 every month from Qatar. Speaker 2 contends that Netanyahu cannot give the money himself because Israel would not give money to Hamas, and banks would not cooperate, so Netanyahu must beg Qatar, a small but very rich country, to provide money to their enemy. Speaker 0 contends that these suitcases of money were given to Hamas at the personal request of Benjamin Netanyahu, and that because the Qatari side knew him from the beginning, they asked him to send their requests in writing because they believed he would lie in the future. Speaker 1 asserts that Netanyahu allowed more than $1,000,000,000 to be transferred to the hands of Hamas because he believed he could control the level of hatred, and states that this notion is nonsense, adding that he cannot control the flames.

July 22, the U.S. House is voting on the National Defense Authorization Act (“must-fund pass defense bill”), including a newly inserted Section 219 that merges the U.S. and Israel’s militaries. The speaker says Thomas Massy and Ro Khanna have offered a provision to remove Section 219 or at least allow debate, but the House has turned it down each time and will not allow removal to be debated. The speaker describes today’s vote as a recorded vote and says they will track every member’s vote. The speaker reads the items in Section 219: counter-drone systems; merged missile defense and air defense; artificial intelligence; quantum technology; autonomous systems; directed energy weapons; advanced sensors; cybersecurity and electronic warfare; and biotechnology and medical defense. The speaker focuses on integration mechanisms, citing Military.com, including joint testing, joint production, joint procurement, supply-chain coordination, network connections between the two systems, and incorporation of Israeli or jointly developed technology into U.S. systems. The speaker also points to a claimed concern that U.S. intelligence agencies have described Israel as a top counterespionage target while the initiative would still integrate Israeli technology into U.S. systems. The speaker says undoing the integration would be nearly impossible because it would establish its own office inside the Department of War, described as a joint office with its own budget and director. The speaker attributes the standalone office plan to “Netanyahu,” stating Netanyahu said the plan was his and that Congressmen would continue funding Israel. The speaker claims the office would make money harder to trace by shifting spending into “special program” or “classified budget” categories. The speaker calls this “one of the single most detrimental things” to the country. If the House passes it today, the speaker says all members who vote yes will be tracked and targeted for removal in November because the recorded vote puts every member on record. The speaker then outlines the legislative path: the measure goes to the Senate, which has its own version of the NDAA with a similar provision numbered 1217; the Senate Armed Services Committee handled it in a closed-door markup in June and the Senate bill is stalled. If both chambers pass their versions, the provisions move to a conference committee that could change, survive, or remove Section 219. The speaker emphasizes the House vote does not complete the process, but it removes the last chance to strip the provision from the NDAA and moves the fight to closed-door negotiations.

"In the past three years, Americans have paid more for Israel's defense budget than Israelis themselves, according to the Israeli army's former chief of staff." "The United States gave nearly $3,100,000,000 to Israel this year, making it the number one contributor of American foreign aid." "And yet during this time, we're giving a huge amount of money to Israel." "Israel ranks among the top 30 richest countries in the world, while some of the poorest countries only see a fraction of that amount in USAID." "According to the Congressional Research Center, once dispersed, Israel's military aid is transferred to an interest bearing account with the Federal Reserve Bank." "This means Americans are paying interest on the billions of dollars given to Israel, while Israel accumulates interest on those same billions."

The speaker argues that withholding U.S. military funding for Israel—specifically the $2,000-pound bombs, guided munitions, and offensive weapons, and possibly not even continuing offensive weapon transfers for a week—would lead to a peace deal. The speaker claims this would also be immediately reflected in the U.S. economy, saying gas and diesel prices would drop five percent instantly once that happened, framing it as an “admission” that the war should never have been initiated. The speaker presents this as a way to “save American lives” and “put America first.” The speaker then says Benjamin Netanyahu is “one step ahead,” pointing to a letter posted online over the last few days in which Netanyahu calls for a new framework for aid to Israel. The letter, according to the speaker, reduces aid to Israel but reframes it as a “partnership,” with the idea that the relationship is not ended but “deepened.” The speaker describes the reframing as Israel presenting aid as an arrangement among equals rather than assistance, asserting, “don’t end the relationship, deepen it,” and “we’re actually equals, we’re partners,” implying that the U.S. would still provide resources while Israel accesses them under that new framing. The speaker criticizes the suggestion, saying it shows “hubris” and makes the speaker feel Netanyahu believes Americans work for him. The speaker concludes by stating that Netanyahu will likely get his way unless he changes the plan.

The speaker believes 95-99% of Congress should be tried for treason for allowing Israel and its money to control everything in the United States. They claim the U.S. does not have control over itself because Congress is controlled by a foreign nation that does not have America's best interests in mind. The speaker cites a vote to cut $500 million from going to Israel, alleging it goes towards bombing kids, and claims 455 people voted to keep it, while only six voted against it. Marjorie Taylor Greene is praised for opposing the funding. The speaker asserts Israel controls the United States 100% and suggests people should investigate how much money each congressperson has taken from APAC, which they describe as an Israeli funding service. They also allege most members of Congress are probably on the Epstein list.

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."

Speaker 0 raises a question about accountability for Israel and mentions Jeffrey Epstein’s dealings with Mossad. Speaker 1 asks, without specifics, whether there are forces that tried to influence him to stop what he’s doing now. Speaker 0 responds that they wouldn’t vote for foreign aid and foreign war funding, and they were upset because he said no. He states: “I’m not voting to fund the Ukraine war ever,” and “Israel’s doing just fine. We don’t need to give them a penny, not a single penny, nor do we need to give it to any other country, but they get mad at me for that.”

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 how politicization of intelligence has manifested in different eras, comparing past and present administrations. Speaker 0 asks whether the politicized weapons claims about Iraq and the CIA’s statements in the 1990s can be compared to today’s politicization of intelligence under John Ratcliffe and Tulsi Gabbard as head of DNI, arguing it is much worse now because of the mediocrity of those in control of key agencies. Speaker 1 counters by recalling the 1980s, noting that there was significant politicization of the Soviet threat to justify Reagan’s defense buildup, and adds that this is why he testified against Robert Gates in 1991. He asserts that politicization is bad, and insists that the current situation is worse than in the past. Speaker 1 explains: “It’s Because I look at the people who are ahead of these groups. Come on. Let’s be serious.” He targets the leadership of the director of national intelligence, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and the CIA, saying, “Have you ever seen a cabinet in The United States of such mediocrity, of such venality?” He emphasizes his background, stating, “I haven’t,” and that nothing compares to what is going on now, warning that “a lot of damage is being done to The United States and to the constitution of The United States and to the importance of separation of powers and the importance of rule of law and the importance of checks and balances. This is very serious stuff.” Speaker 0 attempts to steer toward historical figures like Robert Maxwell, but Speaker 1 dismisses that concern as off point, insisting he is making a point about Israel. The exchange then shifts to U.S. support for Israel, with Speaker 1 asserting that “Israel gets what it wants from The United States. It gets it from democratic presidents and from republican presidents.” He also criticizes Barack Obama for signing what he calls “that ten year $40,000,000,000 arms aid agreement,” arguing that Obama “never should have signed” it “because they treated Obama so shabbily in the first place.”

Speaker 0: The discussion turns to how long you plan to stay in public life. Speaker 1: I don’t measure it by time, but by missions and tasks. I’m supported by a great majority of the people in the country, and that support comes despite foreign reporting. That is why I keep winning elections. When people say I might be a king, I respond that I’m not a king—I have to get elected, for God’s sake. I have great support at home: my wife is incredible, she’s a lioness; my two boys support me; and the people support me. Speaker 0: What do they support you for? Speaker 1: They want me to complete the quest for peace. They understand that I really liberated Israel’s economy from stagnant semi-socialism to become one of the most remarkable founts of creativity, innovation, and technology in the world. We have unbelievable technology today, and we now have an opportunity. Israel was a country with $17,000 per capita when I took over as foreign minister; I had a brief stint there. Today it’s going to cross $60,000 per capita. It’s still a way to go, but that’s a change that no country experienced because of the free market revolution that I introduced here. Speaker 0: There’s a sense of an upcoming revolution. Speaker 1: I see a much greater revolution coming. It’s here, it’s not coming; it’s already here. All the wondrous technologies we have—some of them are very frightening. I’ve talked to the leaders of AI in the world, and you ask yourself, there are so many blessings in this, but there could be a curse. The task is to challenge it, or to channel it into the blessings that Israel can give itself and the world. I think there’s another revolution coming, and I tend to steer it along with the achievement of a broader peace. These are two enormous tasks that I’d like to take on. And when history is within reach, you don’t step aside; you step forward. And that’s what I’m doing.

The speaker began reading every bill in Congress and, as ranking member of a State Department subcommittee, was responsible for the State Department authorization bill. While reading the bill, the speaker discovered that any Jew who wanted to move to Israel was moved at US taxpayers' expense, regardless of their location. This was funded by a $30,000,000 fund within the State Department. The speaker asked the House International Relations Committee staff what happened if the money wasn't used up, and was told the appropriation would be added to the next year's allocation.

- The public blames Netanyahu for October 7 as the one who fed the beast. He did not create Hamas, but he fed it. - Netanyahu, who is against peace and against having a Palestinian state, dealt with Hamas for a long time as a strategic friend. It was important for him to keep Gaza under the control of Hamas and keeping the West Bank under Fateh and preventing them from being united in any way. In order to do so, Netanyahu was all the time helping Hamas to survive. - At the same time that he was under investigation, he arranged for Hamas to receive $35,000,000 every month from Qatar. - Netanyahu can't give the money by himself. Israel will not give money to the Hamas. You cannot even transfer this money through banks because even the banks don't want to cooperate. So you, the Israeli prime minister, needs to beg this small and very rich country, Qatar, to give money to our enemy. - This suitcases of money was given to Hamas under the request of Benjamin Netanyahu personally. And because the Qatarians knew him from the beginning, they were asking him to send them his requests in writing because they knew that he's going to lie in the future. - He allowed more than 1,000,000,000 to be transferred to the hands of the Hamas because he believed that he can control the level of hatred. It's nonsense. He cannot control the flames. - Your strategy was keep Hamas there, weaken the Palestinian authority on the West Bank, sustain the extremists, weaken the moderate. This exploded in our faces in the most brutal way on October 7. - Bibi tells the world again and again and again, I'm the expert on terrorism. I know how to fight terrorism. I'm the protector of Israel. And under his regime, we get into this incredible, unbelievable war. - I think we have to finish the job. We can finish the job. Victory is within reach, and that's our goal, total victory. Our fight is your fight, and our victory is your victory. Tonight, I wanna speak to you about total victory. Total victory over Hamas. Unless we have total victory, we can't have peace. - Total victory doesn't actually mean anything here in actuality. You know all of the casualties and death and suffering, and that's what it looks like in reality. That's what those words actually mean. - My dear friends, the word Gaza could end tomorrow if Hamas surrenders, disarms, and returns all the hospital. That's what total victory means, and we will settle for nothing less. - Netanyahu comes to the congress because he needs Americans desperately. - My friends, I came to assure you today of one thing. We will win. - He wants the Israeli public to be proud to have their leader speaking in front of this very prestigious group and getting applauded so many times. He's speaking to the American Congress, but he's really speaking to the Israeli public. - I would say that, tragically, the Americans don't know how to call him out. There was no plan for ending the war of Gaza, bringing the hostages home, and changing dynamics in the region. And things only got worse. Netanyahu is the architect of chaos. He may create a situation where it's irreversible. - He is the great example of a leader that lead his people to the wrong place. But this is the reality in which he will preserve his political power. And he know how to manipulate. Manipulate. He needs it in a way.

In a 1990 audio recording from Finks Bar in Jerusalem, Netanyahu allegedly stated America is a golden calf to be exploited until it becomes a welfare state controlled by them, fulfilling "God's will." This is supposedly done to countries they hate, destroying them slowly for refusing to be slaves, having already possessed the minds of the "Goy" communities. In 2015, Netanyahu claimed he didn't mean the prior statements and loves America, possibly being okay with a Palestinian state. However, after reelection, he stated there would be no Palestinian state as long as he was prime minister, requiring recognition of a Jewish state and real security for a two-state solution. The speaker suggests researching Netanyahu's 1990 speech at Finks Bar. The speaker believes people are blind and it will never stop, calling it a Zionist world order, citing the Iraq wars, Netanyahu, and Saddam Hussein. The speaker concludes we live in a world of illusions, lies, propaganda, and bullshit.

In a 1990 audio recording from Finks Bar in Jerusalem, Netanyahu allegedly stated that America is a golden calf to be exploited until it becomes a welfare state controlled by them, because it is the will of God. The speaker claims this is what they do to countries they hate, destroying them slowly for refusing to be slaves, and that they have already possessed the minds of the Goy communities. In 2015, Netanyahu claimed he didn't mean any of it and that he loves America, and could maybe be okay with a Palestinian state. However, after being reelected, he stated in an interview that there would be no Palestinian state as long as he was prime minister, requiring recognition of a Jewish state and real security for a two-state solution. The speaker urges listeners to look up the 1990 speech, asserting its factual basis. The speaker also suggests researching Netanyahu's involvement in the Iraq wars and Saddam Hussein, claiming it's the same people involved repeatedly. The speaker concludes that we live in a world of illusions, lies, propaganda, and bullshit.

Speaker 0 argues that the Israeli war for the greater Israel project is the catalyst for the collapse of American power worldwide due to unconditional U.S. support. He says the United States is on a road to an economic crisis, a financial catastrophe not experienced since the 1930s, and that until it becomes that bad, people will not voice their views in Washington. He contends that the Senate, the House, and the White House are all firmly in the grip of the lobby. He predicts that when the collapse comes, which he expects sometime this year, it will be “god awful hell to pay for the Israelis, and it’s going to be the end of this administration, and probably the end for most of the people on the hill.” He describes a movement from abundance—oil, cash, and everything—to scarcity, forecasting that the living standard won’t be enjoyed for long and that the country will resemble Great Britain after World War II: hopelessly in debt, retreating forces abroad to cut expenses, and unable to recover. He warns of a larger war and asks how long a blockade will last before others force it to end, whether it could become a global event, noting that the secretary of war has stated there will be a global blockade. He cites General Kane discussing boarding ships and blockading vessels coming out of the Persian Gulf and heading into the Strait of Malacca, calling the idea “stupidity on stilts” and predicting it will turn a current conflict into a global phenomenon and likely a global war. He insists there will be no good outcomes for the United States or its people, and that he does not blame Americans for their complacency, acknowledging that Americans are human beings and will only respond when hurt immediately or when they see clear pains such as shortages. Speaker 1 agrees, saying many people are not intentionally burying their heads in the sand, but they will awaken when they notice changes on grocery shelves, at the gas pump, inflation rising, housing prices falling, mortgage rates increasing, and all the pressures tied to lack of food on the table. He hopes for waking up beforehand but does not anticipate it. He then shares a recent, disturbing note from Natalie: Benjamin Netanyahu posted on social media about Lebanon, showing bombs hitting infrastructure across Lebanon.

I started reading every bill, which was revolutionary for Congress. As ranking member of a subcommittee on operations for the State Department, I was responsible for the State Department authorization bill. I made sure to read it thoroughly before putting my name on it. I discovered things like the fact that any Jew who wanted to move to Israel was moved at US taxpayer expense, no matter where they were coming from on the planet. This was funded by a $30,000,000 fund within the State Department. When I asked the House International Relations Committee staff what happened if they didn't use all the money, they said the appropriation simply carried over to the next year.