reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 introduces a moment to hear what the crowd thinks, noting skepticism about whether there will be opportunity to see it. Speaker 1 says they don’t know who’s whispering to the speaker, likening it to Grima Wormtongue, and asserts that half the people from their movement aren’t on Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin’s team. They say: “We aren’t neocons. We aren’t war hawks. We want America first. And if you make me choose between America first and MAGA, it’s America first all day. That’s what MAGA was supposed to be. You were just the best vessel for it, bro. Don’t get it twisted.” Speaker 2 contends that despite Trump’s flaws, including insider trading, they’re glad he’s differentiating and saying “you’re not with me because I’m not with you.” They reject being associated with someone they describe as a “cool corrupt kid” and a “Jeffrey Epstein class table.” They claim Trump “wasn’t loyal to his original mission. He wasn’t loyal to America. He became a creature of Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu,” and that all “his never troubled enemies are now the courtiers with the madness of King Lear” telling him the lies they want to hear, and declare they are not one of those people. Speaker 3 argues that this proves multiple things, including that “the first thing, he shouldn’t be in office anymore. Implement the twenty fifth.” They say Trump isn’t loyal to this country or to anybody except “that little country in the Middle East.” They note it’s as if he does what he’s told, and compare him unfavorably to JFK for telling that country no. They ask, “How can you call them losers when you lose to Bibi Netanyahu in Israel every single day? When’s the last time you told them no to anything?” Speaker 0 shifts to a personal jab, saying Brigitte Macron is far more beautiful than Candace Owens, and asserts he’s been blind across the Internet. They reference reactions on Truth Social, noting “they’ve turned on you.” They catalog some responses: “You are way out of line.” They remind that many were once day ones, including Alex Jones, who had Trump on his show when “no media company would have you on.” They summarize: people are telling Trump to take a step back and “get back to America first.” Others say, “You are just going against everyone that fought for him to win just because of the Epstein files and being at war with Iran for Israel.” They quote: “We didn’t leave MAGA. MAGA left them. Clearly, you are insane. Time to resign, Donald or face the twenty fifth. You are mentally and emotionally unfit to be POTUS.” Additional insults follow: “You are so childish. Clearly, the truth has triggered you being one of your biggest supporters. I am done with you and your lies.” They claim Trump bent the knee to a monster, leaving a mess in the country, and, finally, describe a recurring social media pattern: “this was the most brutal and sadly a recurring response all across social media.” Speaker 0 adds that a tweet about Charlie suggested he would be on a list if they hadn’t killed him, asserting that “there is no truth and there is no loyalty within you.”

The speaker declares their support for Israel and asserts that the American people disagree with President Biden on this issue. They express gratitude to President Biden for his "unequivocal support," stating that this will be remembered in 2024.

In the described scene, the setting is at a settler’s house, inside the living room, where a video is being recorded. The performer, identified as Netanyahu, is no longer the prime minister at this point in the video. He instructs a boy, “turn off the video camera.” The boy either does not switch it off or deliberately turns it back on, so the recording continues. Despite the ongoing footage, Netanyahu keeps speaking, and his remarks follow. Netanyahu ridicules “us” and shifts to a discussion about America. He states, “let me tell you something about America. Okay? America is a thing that is easily moved.” He asserts that “80% of them support us.” This is presented as his claim about American public opinion. Continuing, Netanyahu references Bill Clinton, asserting, “I’m not afraid of Bill Clinton.” He recounts what he did to Clinton, implying a confrontation or pressuring stance, and then summarizes Clinton’s position with “Bill Clinton said yada yada Area C.” In response to Clinton’s assertion, Netanyahu claims, “I said no problem, Bill.” The assertion broadens into a concrete policy claim. Netanyahu continues by describing his actions regarding Area C, stating, “But then you know what I did? I made it where Area C is this huge military area, two thirds of the West Bank.” This culminates the segment with a description of a significant territorial designation and its geographic impact, specifically that Area C has been made a substantial military zone comprising two-thirds of the West Bank. Overall, the video captures Netanyahu in a contentious, confrontational moment, moving from a request to stop recording to provocative commentary about the relationship with the United States and former President Bill Clinton, culminating in an emphatic claim about reconfiguring Area C as a vast military area covering a large portion of the West Bank. The sequence emphasizes a blend of defiance, provocative rhetoric about international relations, and a decisive, controversial shift in territorial designation.

The discussion opens with Speaker 0 noting that the first foreign visit by a New York City mayor is significant and asks where each candidate would go first. Speaker 1 (Cuomo) replies, “First visit, I would visit The Holy Land.” Speaker 2, addressing hostility and antisemitism in New York, adds, “Given the hostility and the antisemitism that has been shown in New York, I would go to Israel.” Speaker 0 then directs the question to Speaker 2 (Tilson). Tilson responds, “Yeah. I’d make my fourth trip to Israel followed by my fifth trip to Ukraine, two of our greatest allies fighting on the front lines of the global war on terror.” Speaker 0 moves to Speaker 3 (Mamdani), who says, “I would stay in New York City. My plans are to address New Yorkers across the five boroughs and focus on that.” Speaker 4 interjects with a follow-up to Mamdani: “Mister Mamdani, can I just jump in? Would you visit Israel… as mayor?” Mamdani answers that as mayor, “I'll be doing as the mayor, I'll be standing up for Jewish New Yorkers, I'll be meeting them wherever they are across the five boroughs, whether that's in their synagogues and temples or at their homes or at the subway platform because, ultimately, we need to focus on delivering on their concerns.” The conversation then covers a direct question: “And just yes or no, do you believe in a Jewish state of Israel?” Mamdani replies, “I believe Israel has the right to exist.” Speaker 4 counters, “Not Israel. State?” Mamdani responds, “Notice. As a state with equal rights.” Speaker 1 presses Mamdani further, noting, “He won't he won't say it has a right to exist. Does a Jewish state be very clear?” Speaker 2 adds, “Answer was no. He won't visit Israel.” Mamdani claims, “I I said that That's what he was trying to say. No. Unlike you, I answered unlike you, I answered the question directly. Alright.” The conversation then shifts to Speaker 5, who shares a personal rationale: “My my goal would be to take my first trip to Israel. My wife's life work in this area means a lot to our family, and it could coincide with my young son, Miles, bar mitzvah, if you'd like to have his bar mitzvah.” Speaker 2 interjects briefly, “Okay. But” before the excerpt ends.

Congress has talked about this issue for a long time, and I'm glad the question was finally called. However, it's disappointing that some people, who support Ukraine and Israel, prioritized politics over our national security interests. I'm still shocked by their decision.

Speaker 0 argues that Israel, through its lobby, has manifested so much power over the United States Congress that the country is embroiled in wars they believe they should not be in. He states that whenever Israel is mentioned, someone claims you’re an anti-Semite, and he contends that policies in the Middle East have been one-sided and subjective, leading to many enemies and the importing of terrorists as a consequence. He asserts: “Israel through their lobby has manifested total power of the congress of the United,” and expresses a concern that taxpayers and the citizens of the United States should control their government, not a foreign entity. Speaker 1 challenges these assertions, saying: “You did. That’s not what you said. You said they’re controlling our foreign policy. They’re controlling our domestic policy.” He presses back, stating: “That quote, they are influencing and the sole control of influencing of our domestic policy is an absurdity. It sounds like you are a kook.” He explicitly disputes the idea that Israel controls the Congress and domestic policy. Speaker 0 clarifies, “I believe they control the senate and the house foreign affairs committee.” Speaker 1 repeats that claim as insane, prompting Speaker 0 to insist: “I’m not suggesting it. I served in congress for seven…,” implying a longer service and experience to support his concerns, though the sentence is cut off. The exchange centers on claims of disproportionate Israeli influence in U.S. federal policy, the objectivity of Middle East policy, and the contention that foreign lobbies, particularly related to Israel, have undue power over congressional decision-making, contrasted with direct rebuttals labeling such claims as irrational or insane.

There is no such thing as a Palestinian, and this has been a political tool to try to force land away from Israel. A two-state solution, if it means two governments holding the same piece of real estate, is irrational and unworkable. If there is a two-state solution, the Palestinian state needs to be outside the boundaries of the nation of Israel. There is plenty of land in the world to create a Palestinian state. There is no such thing as a West Bank; it's Judea and Samaria. There is no such thing as a settlement; they are communities, neighborhoods, and cities. There is no such thing as an occupation.

The speaker states that the promise was to put America first, and believes there are still voices in the administration, such as J.D. Vance, Tulsi Gabbard, and RFK Junior, who could prevail. However, they were not persuasive in this case, but somebody was. The speaker claims that APAC, the Israeli lobby in congress, is very persuasive. The speaker observes that their colleagues' social media feeds all look the same, tweeting the same message about supporting Israel.

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."

Speaker 0 asserts that Bezalel Smotrich and Ben Gavir are “literally talking about exterminating the entire population of Gaza.” Speaker 1 counters that they are not talking about extermination. Speaker 0 insists the statements are brazen, up front, and what they actually want to do. Speaker 0 adds that Hamas is involved in a separate context. Speaker 0 says, “The West Bank had nothing to do with what happened on October 7, but they're annexing that land anyway. They're raining terror on innocent people, innocent Palestinians.” Speaker 0 concedes, “I am willing to admit, because it's the truth, that what Hamas did on October 7 was a fucking atrocity,” specifically mentioning killing innocent people. Speaker 1 challenges acknowledgement of atrocities against civilians in Gaza. Speaker 0 asks about a hospital being tapped; Speaker 1 responds that it’s an old terrorist trick and they do it “all the time.” Speaker 0 asks whether the IDF's action was wrong. Speaker 1 concedes, “I'm sure they have committed what we would call war crimes, as every army does in every war.” Speaker 0 notes, “Including our own.” Speaker 1 agrees, giving the Civil War example: Sherman burned Atlanta and Vad, arguing that despite brutality, the North were the good guys fighting slavery, and also noting Israel is fighting to survive and is the front line in the Western world. Speaker 0 disputes this, saying much of the problems in the Middle East come from an expansionist policy and that if Israel wasn’t trying to continue expanding, they would not be dealing with the enemies they’re dealing with. Speaker 1 disagrees that they ever were expanding, arguing they “were attacked” and that they “never been trying to expand.” Speaker 0 claims Israel is trying to annex the West Bank, southern Lebanon, and Syria, and argues they have succeeded in doing so. Speaker 1 says these are lands where they were attacked from when Israel became a country in 1947; he claims Israel said, “we will accept half a loaf,” and asserts they had as much right to that land as anybody, with a historical presence since a thousand BC when King David had a lineage. Speaker 0 dismisses this lineage-based argument as irrelevant to the present. Speaker 1 counters that it’s relevant, and asserts that the notion of wiping out innocent people merely because one’s ancestors lived there centuries ago is not acceptable. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 calling Palestinians colonizers, and Speaker 1 arguing they are not colonizers; they assert that Israel is annexing land, which, in their view, is described as colonization.

Speaker 0 argues that the American government is trapped by the Israelis, using Jeffrey Epstein as a tool to constrain and manipulate U.S. leaders. He claims Epstein was used to trap multiple presidents and influence policy, stating, “Bill Clinton, Ehud Barak met Arafat in the nineties, and there was no deal. The reason was Epstein. They were being blackmailed by Epstein.” He adds that Ehud Barak, then Israeli prime minister, was also “a friend of Epstein” but was blackmailed by the Israeli right wing, and that this pressure stopped a potential two-state solution with Arafat. He asserts Epstein’s leverage extended beyond sex to financial concerns, questioning, “Where was the money coming from?” and contends that the Gaza issue is the focal point of much of the obstruction. He cites Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal reporting a birthday card Trump sent to Epstein as evidence of ties, and claims that Israelis have compromised the American government through Epstein and related past events. He also states that “I don’t think Trump wants to continue this war or the genocide” and that Israelis are inhibiting him. Speaker 1 asks what Dershowitz’s denial suggests, prompting Speaker 0 to elaborate with broader conspiracy implications, suggesting that Israeli influence has shaped U.S. policy and history, including why peace deals or normalization efforts may have stalled. Speaker 1 questions why those in power would use Epstein instead of other drastic measures like assassination, referencing theories about John F. Kennedy’s assassination and noting the possibility of broader intelligence involvement. He proposes that the GCC countries could leverage financial power to supplant traditional APAC lobbying in influencing U.S. policy and asks whether Trump could mobilize Arab world and BRICS power to end what is described as genocide. Speaker 0 answers that Trump could end the genocide “right now” if he stops fearing the Israelis, urging him to disregard accusations about his ethics, “Let them say whatever they say. He should stop the genocide. Let them do whatever they wanna do. Morality should take over.” He compares the Israeli pressure to historical leverage, asking Trump to act in the interest of the United States and the Middle East. Speaker 1 references Robert Maxwell as an example of Israeli intimidation, noting the dangers of challenging them. Speaker 0 closes by reiterating hope that Trump will prioritize U.S. and Middle East interests and “do the right thing.”

The discussion centers on how Donald Trump is said to have “transformed” from describing himself as being under blackmail or duress to portraying himself as someone who can control Netanyahu and Israel—framed as a rationalizing process meant to avoid cognitive dissonance. The speaker argues that, if a person is pressured into actions, the mind may later reframe the situation so the person believes they “chose this” rather than being forced, ultimately convincing themselves that they are in control. This is illustrated through historical examples and analogies, including claims that Stockholm-syndrome-like processes occur when captives are compelled to adapt psychologically and socially to survive. To support the explanation, the speaker cites Texas frontier accounts and rereads Herman Lehman’s *Nine Years Among the Indians, 1870 to 1879*, describing cases in which boys captured by Comanches and Apaches could be brought over into the captors’ mindset over time. The speaker also references *Indian Depredations in Texas* (1889) and films such as *The Searchers* (including the story of a kidnapped girl who does not want to return), as well as Burt Lancaster’s *Ulzanas Raid*. The core claim is that these captives underwent prolonged hardship and social pressure—adaptation through survival, conditioning, and eventual identity change—so that the captive’s mind becomes “in their mind” part of the group. The speaker then ties the framework to contemporary politics by returning to remarks attributed to Trump about Israel and Netanyahu. The speaker says that earlier, Rubio and Trump supposedly said they conducted an attack (after February 28) because Israel said it would attack Israel, but that later Trump’s mindset shifts to believing Netanyahu will do whatever he says and that Trump may even joke about becoming “the next prime minister of Israel.” The speaker adds that Trump reportedly dismisses unfavorable polls as “fake news” and cites a poll Trump mentioned claiming extremely high Israeli favorability, arguing that such favorability does not translate to broad global acceptance. A large portion shifts to a geopolitical and energy argument focused on Iran, the Strait of Hormuz, and the global economy. The speaker claims that U.S.-linked actions have increasingly been associated with heightened risk, noting U.S.-provided munitions and support and asserting that extending Israel’s range with refuelers helps Israel “leapfrog” beyond Israel’s defensive perimeter. The speaker argues that assassination tactics and “sneak attack” approaches undermine negotiation, using historical comparisons (including Pearl Harbor) to argue that starting or escalating conflict produces long-term distrust and consequences. The speaker argues that the conflict is not sustainable as a prolonged “stalemate” because world fuel levels are declining and the global system is described as being “just in time,” with tankers serving as moving inventory. The speaker proposes a “tank bottom” concept—when reserve fuel buffers abroad become so depleted that supply chains and infrastructure cannot handle remaining fractions—leading to global cascading effects. They claim that even if ships head to the U.S. to refuel, it inflates U.S. prices, damages perceptions of the U.S. internationally, and does not solve the global shortfall. From there, the speaker forecasts knock-on impacts: acute energy problems followed by food crisis conditions, and they link agriculture outcomes to fertilizer, diesel, irrigation, and supply constraints. They also argue that psychological and social preparedness matters—asserting that Americans may collapse faster due to expectations of constant electricity, water, and supermarket access, while people with lived hardship may adapt more readily. The transcript also includes an extended interlude promoting and discussing products and fundraising tied to the show, including supplements, iodine products, wallets, and an RFID/Faraday-shield theme. It describes sales, pricing, and claims about how shielding protects against card scanning and data theft.

Speaker 0 asks if Ron DeSantis has ever denounced them, to which Speaker 1 replies that he hasn't. They claim to be his biggest supporters and if he were to denounce them, they would say he's lying because he's trying to secure the presidency. Speaker 1 mentions that politicians in the US have to support Israel and that DeSantis is just pretending to be a friend of the Jewish people while actually being a friend of white America. They bring up HB 269, a bill DeSantis signed in Israel, and criticize it for not achieving its intended goals. They conclude that DeSantis is focused on the best interests of white America.

Speaker 0 argues that the biblical quotation is being misrepresented, saying that instead of “I will bless those who bless Israel,” the relevant wording is “I will bless those who bless Abraham,” and claims the passage is not even being quoted properly by those using it to justify action. Speaker 1 says the effect is to distort American politics, stating that it was agreed during the “Russia hysteria” of the last administration that it was wrong and illegal for a foreign government to control American politics. They assert that now the national conversation is centered on a “tiny, totally irrelevant” country with “one great city, Jerusalem,” described as geopolitically irrelevant and “at the behest of a foreign government.” Speaker 1 adds that the foreign government is said to be openly threatening censorship of those who disagree—“you don’t agree with us? We’re gonna censor you”—and questions how that can stand. They state that they see a pattern in which small satellite groups, including the ADL and APAC, push the position, and that “the congress obeys.” They conclude that a foreign leader calling for censorship of American citizens, along with related organizational and congressional responses, must be a “red line.”

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 accuses the Prime Minister of Israel of showing disrespect toward the president of my country, asserting he never had any respect at all. Netanyahu is pictured here as mocking Bill Clinton and the American people as "a bunch of grasshoppers that he can do whatever he wants with us, including lie our fathers into sending their sons to die in his wars." In this video, he is no longer the prime minister at a settler's house in the living room. He tells the boy, turn off the video camera, and the boy either fails to turn it off or turns it back on; the video keeps rolling as Netanyahu blabs. He adds, "America is a thing that is easily moved. 80% of them support us." "I'm not afraid of Bill Clinton." He says, "I made it where Area C is this huge military area, two thirds of the West Bank."

Donald Trump was working to bring peace between Iran and Israel, and Israel didn’t want that at all. They tried to murder the negotiators in that round of peace talks from Hamas in Doha, and they tried to tell the world that Trump signed off on this, that Trump knew, totally false. Trump did not know. Not only did they do this, they tried to implicate Trump in it. A couple of weeks later he responded with an executive order that I’m going to read verbatim because it’s bet not one in a hundred people knows this even happened. This was in September: he signed an executive order called the Assuring the Security of the State of Qatar. The order states: The United States and the State of Qatar have been bound together by close cooperation, shared interests, and the close relationship between our armed forces. The State of Qatar has hosted The United States forces, enabled critical security operations, and stood as a steadfast ally in pursuit of peace, stability, and prosperity both in The Middle East and abroad, including as a mediator that has assisted The United States attempts to resolve significant regional and global conflicts. Listen: In recognition of this history and in light of the continuing threats to the state of Qatar posed by foreign aggression, it is the policy of The US to guarantee the security and territorial integrity of the state of Qatar against external attack. The United States shall regard any armed attack on the territory sovereignty or critical infrastructure of the state of Qatar as a threat to the peace and security of The United States. Oh, wait a second. What was the last act of foreign aggression against Qatar? What happened that exact same month? It was a bombing by Israel. So Israel bombs Qatar and Donald Trump issues an executive order saying if you do that again, reading by the language here, we’re going to war with you. Donald Trump took the side of Qatar over and above Israel and told Israel, and who knows if he’d actually do it, it’s in the executive order, If you do this again, that’s tantamount to an attack on us. That’s a security guarantee. Keep that in mind because there are a lot of Trump voters who are upset about nine eleven; the residue was still in their mouth. That part of the world did it to us. Islam did it to us. And anyone who wants to have a normal relationship with an Islamic country is probably pro Al Qaeda. I get it. I know those feelings. Had them. But here Donald Trump, the guy that you voted for taking Qatar’s side against Israel. Why is that? Because Donald Trump is a secret Islamist? No. Because Qatar is a lot better for The United States than Israel has been.

The speaker was asked if they believed students protesting were motivated by anti-Semitism or horror at the Gaza slaughter. The speaker dismissed the idea of students being driven by horror and refused to continue the conversation if it was being recorded.

In this exchange, Speaker 0 raises the issue of the USS Liberty attack in 1967, arguing that if truth matters, the Israeli government must be held accountable because the American flag was flying on that ship. Speaker 0 presses why, in a discussion of modern Israeli–American relations, Speaker 1 would deem the attack “irrelevant” to current ties. Speaker 1 responds that when assessing today’s relations, citing the 1967 attack as a basis for judgment is irrelevant—comparable to using evidence from World War II or 1776 to define present-day relations with Britain or Germany. He emphasizes that while the attack was horrible and tragic for those involved, and that Israel paid reparations, the actual naval record indicates the incident was a mistaken and tragic event. He notes that those who reference the USS Liberty often do so to suggest Israel deliberately harmed America, and asks if that is Speaker 0’s broader point. Speaker 0 reiterates that truth requires accountability from the Israeli government, given the American flag on the ship. Speaker 1 points to the naval investigations, stating that multiple investigations exist and that the Israeli military at the time was flying Mirage planes and the USS Liberty was operating off-grid. He explains that the Israeli forces mistook the ship for an Egyptian vessel and believed it was shelling Al-Arish, which was not true. He describes the sequence: the American flag was knocked down in the initial attack, the engagement lasted about ninety minutes, and once it became clear the vessel was American, the attack was halted and a ship was dispatched to assist the Liberty. He also notes there have been other unfortunate friendly-fire incidents in war, such as during the Gulf War when US forces killed British troops. Speaker 0 asks about the broader agenda behind raising the incident, suggesting that it is not limited to that specific event. Speaker 1 acknowledges the question but questions the motive and implies that it is not an appropriate basis for evaluating current U.S.–Israel relations. Speaker 0 asserts that there are ongoing problems in the relationship, but again emphasizes the six-decade-old incident as relevant to the discussion. Speaker 1 maintains that, in the same way that many histories exist, there are many countries and contexts, and reiterates that the question is not answered satisfactorily. The exchange ends with Speaker 1 indicating this will be the last question.

On a press guidance Tuesday, the team addressed Speaker Johnson visiting the settlements in the West Bank and prepared a line: "we support stability in the West Bank." The conversation noted that sounding "stability" could be read as critique of Israel. The transcript also cites "the US government is against extending condolences to the families of noncombatants killed" and that the US is "also now in favor of the forced movement of large populations outside." It then discusses "equities" with Embassy Jerusalem; David Milstein—senior adviser to Ambassador Huckabee, reportedly Ted Cruz staffer and Mark Levin's stepson—would pop into docs and push edits. Milstein allegedly changed the line to "we commend speaker Johnson for visiting Judea And Samaria," a phrase tied to "Israel's land grab of the West Bank" and erasing Palestinian legitimacy. He would "call around the building" to push drafts; policy comes from DC.

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 argues that Israel is 'our greatest ally' and that 'we should never ask anything of them,' while claiming 'Israel has a long history of transferring military technology, including American military technology to China' and that 'China is running the Port Of Haifa, Israel's biggest port.' He contends loyalty is one-way, and that Netanyahu 'has pushed it too far' by claiming 'I control Donald Trump. I control the United States Congress. I control The United States.' The clip shows Trump pushing back on annexing the West Bank, saying, 'I will not allow Israel to annex the West Bank. No. I will not allow it. It's not gonna happen.' The piece links waning support, especially among young voters, to humiliation from 'a tiny foreign power,' concluding, 'That's why Donald Trump has lost support over this Israel question, and he knows that, and he's pushing back.'

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.