reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 asserts ownership over a cow, claiming it was a gift from God. Speaker 0 then declares "This is my house. Not your house. This is for me," while indicating another location is "your house." Speaker 1 states they will be in the test. Speaker 0 proposes going to "fuck the house," demanding to be shown what Speaker 1 wants. Speaker 0 then says they want to dance. Speaker 0 calls Speaker 1 "my bitch," and compliments their appearance, describing them as "sweet" and "fresh."

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 for help in the garden, but Speaker 1 refuses. Speaker 2 suggests that Speaker 1 should make some popsicles, to which Speaker 0 sarcastically suggests that Speaker 1 should stick their face in the freezer. Speaker 1 expresses discomfort being alone with a married man, and Speaker 0 responds by saying they would rather kiss an octopus. Speaker 1 claims to have won a contest and demands money, but Speaker 0 denies any knowledge of it. They exchange insults, with Speaker 0 calling Speaker 1 ugly and Speaker 1 calling Speaker 0 a criminal. Speaker 0 mocks Speaker 1's appearance and they part ways.

Speaker 0 makes offensive and racist remarks towards Speaker 1, using derogatory language. Speaker 1 tries to distance themselves from the offensive comments and expresses their disapproval. Speaker 0 continues with the offensive language and insults Speaker 1. Speaker 1 threatens to leave if Speaker 0 continues with the disrespectful behavior. Speaker 0 responds with another offensive comment.

Speaker 1, a resident in a house, explains that the owner wants Jews to live there to strengthen the neighborhood. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of stealing their house, but Speaker 1 argues that if they don't live there, someone else will. Speaker 0 questions if Speaker 1's intention is to keep Palestinians out, to which Speaker 1 denies, stating it's about keeping Jews in. Speaker 0 suggests this excludes the Palestinians who were there before, but Speaker 1 sees it as a necessary evil. Speaker 1 acknowledges the anger towards them but claims they are not responsible and will be replaced if they leave. Speaker 0 doubts the replacement will be as easygoing.

Speaker 1 requests recognition of their rights in their territory, asserting that it is their business. Speaker 2 acknowledges this but states that the line cannot be crossed at the moment. Speaker 1 disagrees, emphasizing their right to free access. Speaker 2 insists on holding the line temporarily. Speaker 1 argues that it is not the officer's business and reiterates their ownership of the territory. Speaker 2 confirms the location and mentions taking care of some matters. Speaker 0 concludes that the police are breaking the law by denying Bill Jones access to his own territory.

The homeowner, Adele, found squatters in her house and confronted them with the police. The squatters claimed to have a lease but failed to show proof. Adele changed the locks, leading to her arrest for unlawful eviction. The squatters demanded payment or a court resolution. The situation remains unresolved. Translation: The homeowner discovered squatters in her house, leading to a confrontation with the police. The squatters claimed to have a lease but couldn't prove it. The homeowner changed the locks, resulting in her arrest for illegal eviction. The squatters demanded payment or a court decision. The situation remains unresolved.

Speaker 0 confronts someone, accusing them of stealing and threatening to call the cops. Speaker 1 questions what Speaker 0 is going to do. Speaker 0 says that the person and their "buddies" can't steal. Both speakers state that the other can't touch them. Speaker 0 threatens to burn the other person's socks and suit. Speaker 1 tells Speaker 0 to stop and threatens to sue, claiming Speaker 0 is putting hands on them.

Speaker 0 confronts Jacob for being in a house that doesn't belong to him. Jacob argues that if he leaves, Speaker 0 won't return either. He questions why Speaker 0 is yelling at him when he didn't do anything wrong. Speaker 0 accuses Jacob of stealing the house, but Jacob counters that if he doesn't take it, someone else will. Speaker 0 firmly states that no one is allowed to steal the house.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 engage in a heated argument. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of pushing them and demands that they get off their land. Speaker 1 claims to be there as an Indian and asks Speaker 0 to relax. Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1's right to be there and asks to see their deed. The argument escalates as Speaker 0 asserts that the land is their birthright and sacred site. Speaker 1 denies taking anything and accuses Speaker 0 of raping their ancestors and land. Speaker 0 insists that the land belongs to the Shawnee tribe and asks Speaker 1 to leave. The argument ends with Speaker 1 asking for respect and both parties urging each other to leave.

Speaker 0 states to Jacob that it is not his house. Jacob acknowledges this, but says if he leaves, Speaker 0 will not get the house back. He asks why Speaker 0 is yelling at him, claiming he didn't do anything. Speaker 0 says Jacob is helping. Jacob repeats that it's easy to yell at him, but he didn't do it. Speaker 0 accuses Jacob of stealing the house. Jacob responds that if he doesn't steal it, someone else will.

Speaker 0 jokes with Speaker 1 about their appearance and lack of help around the house. Speaker 1 claims to have won a contest and demands money, leading to more insults from Speaker 0. Speaker 0 continues to make fun of Speaker 1's looks, calling them ugly and criminal. Speaker 1 leaves, and Speaker 0 makes a final sarcastic comment before they part ways.

Speaker 0 confronts the other person, claiming the place as their ancestral home. They suggest sharing the space, but the other person is skeptical. Speaker 0 offers security measures to ease their concerns. The other person defends themselves and questions Speaker 0's aggression. Speaker 0 dismisses their claim, labeling it a housing dispute. The conflict is described as complicated, with the new owner seeking a peaceful resolution. The other person expresses feeling unsafe in their own stolen home.

Speaker 1 acknowledges he is not in his own house. He claims that if he leaves, Speaker 0 will not return. Speaker 1 denies responsibility for an unspecified action and says it is easy to yell at him. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of stealing the house. Speaker 1 responds that if he doesn't steal it, someone else will.

Speaker 0 accuses Jacob of stealing their house, but Jacob argues that if he doesn't take it, someone else will. Speaker 0 denies stealing and insists that nobody will take the house.

In the exchange, Speaker 1 indicates they are checking up on them and have received keys, while Speaker 0 asserts clear boundaries about entering the property. Speaker 0 repeatedly states: “You cannot come to my house,” and “This is my property.” They insist that Speaker 1 cannot walk onto the premises, cannot ring the doorbell, and cannot visit; they caution about needing to pass a background check to come to someone’s house, and insist Speaker 1 must leave immediately. Speaker 0 clarifies that they have kids and expresses concern about potential criminal activity, saying, “Call the police and say hi. I have kids. I don’t know. I’m not sure if you’re a criminal.” Speaker 1 agrees to leave after these warnings. The children’s safety is a recurring theme in Speaker 0’s statements, with multiple refusals for access and visits, including a claim that Speaker 1 cannot use childcare or be a friend to gain entry, underscoring the need to leave. During the confrontation, Speaker 0 also notes that they are recording because they do not want their face shown on social media, and claims to have Speaker 1’s information and “saw it already in the system.” Speaker 1 responds with a remark about privacy rights and asserts there is no right to privacy in that context, while continuing to attempt polite closure by saying “You guys have a good day.” Despite the tense exchange, Speaker 1 maintains a calm demeanor and explains they are simply visiting local daycares and that “everybody’s been very nice.” They insist this is not harassment, recounting that they knocked on doors to say hello. They offer New Year’s greetings at the end, repeatedly saying “Have a good day” and “Happy New Year,” and remark that the area feels “very friendly here.” Overall, the interaction centers on a strict boundary set by Speaker 0 regarding entry to the home, safety considerations for children, and the assertion of recording and monitoring, contrasted with Speaker 1’s attempts to explain their benign intentions and to end the encounter with courteous farewells.

Jacob accuses the speaker of stealing his house, but the speaker denies it. Jacob is upset and asks why the speaker is yelling at him. The speaker argues that if they don't take the house, someone else will. Jacob insists that no one should be allowed to steal it.

Speaker 0 sees Speaker 1 and asks who they are. Speaker 1 says they came for Speaker 0, who doesn't recognize them. Speaker 1 mentions Speaker 0's doubt and asks them to stay. Speaker 0 insists on leaving, but Speaker 1 wants them to be their victim.

The transcript centers on a confrontation over property and displacement in East Jerusalem, set against a broader political aim to reshape the city's demographic and symbolic landscape. The dialogue opens with a speaker declaring an ongoing project of seizure and transformation: “We take house after house. All this area will be a Jewish neighborhood. We are not finished the job. We are we are going to the next neighborhood. And after that, we will go more our dream that all East Jerusalem will be like West Jerusalem, Jewish capital of Israel.” The stated objective is both incremental and sweeping, conveying a plan to extend Jewish control house by house until East Jerusalem mirrors West Jerusalem and solidifies its status as the Jewish capital of Israel. Into this context, Speaker 1 interjects with a direct challenge to Jacob: “Jacob, you know this is not your house.” The implication is that the speaker believes the house in question belongs to someone else or is part of a broader program of dispossession. The ensuing exchange reveals the human stakes and the distress involved. Speaker 2 responds with a mix of resignation and frustration: “Yes. But if I go, you don't go back. So what's the problem? Why are you yelling at me? I didn't do this.” He repeats, “I didn't do this,” signaling a denial of responsibility for the act or outcome being carried out. The tension escalates as Speaker 2 intensifies the grievance, insisting, “it's easy to yell at me, but I didn't do this.” The core accusation emerges in a blunt, accusatory line: “You are stealing my house.” The response to this accusation is pragmatic and fatalistic: “And if I don't steal it, someone else is gonna steal it.” This exchange underscores a perceived inevitability or desperation in the face of dispossession, highlighting the moral weight of property seizure within the contested space. The dialogue concludes with a firm counter-statement from Speaker 1: “No. No one no one is allowed to steal it.” This line emphasizes a boundary or rule opposing the act, even as the preceding lines reveal the complexity and intensity of the conflict over who rightfully possesses the house and under what authority such possession occurs. Overall, the transcript portrays a clash between a broader political project to expand Jewish housing and sovereignty in East Jerusalem and the personal, accusatory, and emotional dimensions of those who feel their homes are being taken. The speakers articulate a vision of a city transformed into the Jewish capital, while individuals confront accusations, denial, and the pressure of displacement.

Speaker 0 has a video of Speaker 1 at a house. Speaker 1 claims they were scammed into living there and are waiting for a lawyer. A reporter asks about the dispute over the house's ownership. Speaker 0 says they are waiting on the lawyer and is not leaving. Speaker 1 asks to put the reporter on the phone. Speaker 0 answers the call. Translation: Speaker 0 has a video of Speaker 1 at a house. Speaker 1 claims they were scammed into living there and are waiting for a lawyer. A reporter asks about the dispute over the house's ownership. Speaker 0 says they are waiting on the lawyer and is not leaving. Speaker 1 asks to put the reporter on the phone. Speaker 0 answers the call.

Speaker 0 confronts Speaker 1 for living in a house that doesn't belong to him. Speaker 1 argues that if he leaves, someone else will take it. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of stealing the house, but Speaker 1 claims he has permission from the owner to live there. Speaker 1 explains that he was chosen to live there to maintain a Jewish presence in the neighborhood. Speaker 0 questions his right to be there, and Speaker 1 clarifies that it's about keeping Jews in, not keeping Palestinians out. Speaker 1 acknowledges that the house is lost to Palestinians and emphasizes that they won't be returning. The fate of the second part of the house is uncertain.

Speaker 0 tells Speaker 1 to leave, claiming they are offensive and in their space. Speaker 1 argues they did nothing wrong, but Speaker 0 accuses them of causing a disturbance. Speaker 1 questions Speaker 0's commitment to freedom and democracy, calling them a communist. Speaker 0 responds aggressively. Translation: Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to leave, stating they are offensive and intruding on their space. Speaker 1 defends their actions, while Speaker 0 accuses them of causing trouble. Speaker 1 questions Speaker 0's belief in freedom and democracy, calling them a communist. Speaker 0 responds angrily.

Two speakers engage in a tense confrontation on private property, captured on video. Speaker 1 says, "There's no problem with that," while Speaker 0 accuses, "Not showing respect to the rules of" and, "Because of the just after you are not serving me. Really? Please leave, sir. Please leave. Because I'll make sure you go out of business." Speaker 1 replies, "Don't worry. I'm sorry. I got to call the police as best as you want. But I'm sure you're gonna go out of business." They add, "We will wait for them outside." "You can get out of my property. Yeah. Yeah. Of course. We will leave." The exchange ends with, "Good luck. Idiot." and, "Definitely, he's going out of business, this guy."

An individual is inside another person's home, asserting they now own the house because they are inside. The homeowner demands the person leave and threatens that their dog will bite if instructed. The homeowner repeatedly asks the person to call their supervisor and accuses them of having no right to be there, even if the door was opened by minors. The homeowner states they are the adult. The person inside refuses to leave. The homeowner asks if they touched the person. Someone off-screen says the interaction is being recorded. The homeowner demands the supervisor be called. The person inside is told not to go further inside the house.

Speaker 0 is upset because Speaker 1 hasn't paid rent for a year. Speaker 1 argues they already paid half a year's rent. Speaker 0 insists on full payment as it is their house.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to leave a private property, but Speaker 1 insists on using the restroom. Speaker 0 suggests using a restroom next door, but Speaker 1 refuses. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 0 of being afraid of being photographed and brings up Zionism. Speaker 0 mentions the history of Palestine and thanks Speaker 1 sarcastically. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 expressing support for Palestine.