reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening, despite movements in the region by Israel that resulted from advocacy. The pursuit of what is necessary for the United States to be clear about its stance on the need for the war to end will continue.

The conversation centers on a reported peace framework and the idea that Iran is “giving up all of their chips” and cards. The speaker says many people seem to believe the rumor that a peace deal is in play, and reacts by calling themselves an optimist while insisting the approach must be “realistic.” The speaker argues that any peace deal “won’t be acceptable to Israel,” and that the key requirement is taking steps to restrain Israel. They say that, if the U.S. looks at the Israelis “with clear eyes,” it could achieve a deal with Iran that does not include everything the U.S. wants—for example, the speaker says Iran will not “hill(s) in the deal about zero enrichment” and will not “hand us over all your enrichment.” The speaker’s main goal is ending the fighting, which they say is “definitely possible.” However, the speaker expresses skepticism that the U.S. has taken the first “hard step” of telling Israel it is “done taking offensive action without our permission.” They describe the war as “existential for the Israelis,” and argue the situation cannot assume Israel will not face conditions that could lead to continued attacks or another “terrorist attack.” The speaker says the U.S. cannot “take that off the table” or “rule it out,” and cannot allow others to dismiss considerations as “a conspiracy theory.” The speaker further claims the U.S. has had institutional difficulty being skeptical and “not trusting” regarding Israel, saying Israel “lied us, lied to us to get us into this war.” They argue the U.S. needs to “turn Matter” (stating “as a matter of fact”) and apply more verification, especially because Israel is described as an ally that has misled the U.S. Finally, the speaker says if Israelis believed the U.S. would extricate itself from the conflict, “there would be an element within Israel” seeking actions to prompt Americans to recommit to the conflict, reinforcing the need for not taking anything off the table and emphasizing verification.

The speaker suggests that the entire Gaza Strip should be planted with Jewish settlers and that the Arabs currently living there will eventually leave and go to other countries. They mention organizing meetings with various organizations focused on resettling Gaza. When asked about how to make the Arabs leave, the speaker hesitates but emphasizes that their main concern is the future of the Jewish nation and Israel. They also mention that creating a humanitarian problem in Gaza would force other countries to absorb the Arab refugees, similar to how they absorbed refugees from Syria.

The speaker emphasizes that peace cannot be achieved while terrorists operate from Gaza. He states: "You wouldn't need combat operations if there weren't terrorists there." He adds: "if in fact, at the end of all this, terrorism and a terrorist group remains active inside of Gaza, you're not gonna have peace." He calls these points fundamental: "That's the fundamental truth here that everyone needs to accept." He concludes: "You're never gonna have peace in Gaza as long as there are terrorists operating from that territory threatening the security of Israel." The speaker ties military actions to counterterrorism and asserts that lasting peace depends on addressing the terrorist threat from Gaza.

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.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening, despite movements in the region by Israel prompted by advocacy. The pursuit of what is necessary for the United States to be clear about ending the war will continue.

The speaker is asked if their organization will engage in peace talks with the Israelis. They respond by saying that they don't view it as peace talks, but rather as capitulation or surrender. They question who they would even talk to, suggesting that it would be a conversation between the oppressor and the oppressed. They argue that talking without the presence of weapons is still not enough because they have never seen a successful conversation between a colonizer and a national liberation movement. They emphasize the importance of their struggle for dignity, respect, and human rights.

The conversation centers on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Iran, and regional dynamics, with Speaker 0 (a former prime minister) offering sharp criticisms of the current Israeli government while outlining a path he sees as in Israel’s long-term interest. Speaker 1 presses on US interests, Lebanon, and the ethics and consequences of the war. Key points and claims retained as stated: - Iran and the war: Speaker 0 says he supported the American strike against Iran’s leadership, calling Ayatollah Khamenei’s regime a brutal threat and praising the move as punishment for Iran’s actions, including backing Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. He questions why there was a lack of a clear next-step strategy after the initial attack and asks whether a diplomatic alternative, similar to Obama’s Iran agreement, could have achieved nuclear supervision without war. He notes the broader regional risk posed by Iran’s proxies and ballistic missiles and emphasizes the goal of constraining Iran’s nuclear program, while acknowledging the economic and security costs of the war. - On Netanyahu and influence: Speaker 1 references the New York Times report about Netanyahu’s influence on Trump and asks how much Netanyahu affected the decision to go to war. Speaker 0 says he isn’t certain he’s the best judge of Netanyahu’s influence but believes Netanyahu sought to push the war forward even during a ceasefire and that Iran’s threat required action, though he questions whether the next steps beyond initial strikes were properly planned. He states, “Iran deserve to be punished,” and reiterates the need for a strategy to end hostilities and stabilize the region. - Proxies and regional instability: The discussion highlights Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis as Iranian proxies destabilizing the Middle East, with Speaker 0 insisting that Iran’s support for these groups explains much of the regional violence and Israel’s security concerns. He argues that eliminating or significantly curbing Iran’s influence is essential for regional stability. - Gaza, West Bank, and war ethics: Speaker 1 cites humanitarian and civilian-impact statistics from Gaza, arguing that the war has gone beyond a proportionate response. Speaker 0 concedes there were crimes and unacceptable actions, stating there were “war crimes” and praising investigations and accountability, while resisting the accusation of genocide. He criticizes certain Israeli political figures (e.g., Ben-Gvir, Smotrich) for rhetoric and policies that could protract conflict, and he condemns the idea of broad acceptance of annexation policies in the South of Lebanon. - Lebanon and Hezbollah: The core policy debate is about disarming Hezbollah and the future of Lebanon-Israel normalization. Speaker 0 argues against annexing South Lebanon and says disarming Hezbollah must be part of any Israel–Lebanon peace process. He rejects “artificial” solutions like merging Hezbollah into the Lebanese army with weapons, arguing that Hezbollah cannot be permitted to operate as an independent armed force. He believes disarming Hezbollah should be achieved through an agreement that involves Iran’s influence, potentially allowing Hezbollah to be integrated into Lebanon’s political order if fully disarmed and bound by Lebanese sovereignty, and with international support (France cited). - Practical path to peace: Both speakers acknowledge the need for a negotiated two-state solution. Speaker 0 reiterates a longstanding plan: a two-state solution based on 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine, the Old City administered under a shared trust (involving Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Palestine, Israel, and the United States). He emphasizes that this vision remains essential to changing the regional dynamic and that the current Israeli government’s approach conflicts with this pathway. He frames his opposition to the present government as tied to this broader objective and says he will continue opposing it until it is replaced. - Personal reflections on leadership and regional hope: The exchange ends with mutual recognition that the cycle of violence is fueled by leadership choices on both sides. Speaker 0 asserts that a different Israeli administration could yield a more hopeful trajectory toward peace, while Speaker 1 stresses the importance of accountability for war crimes and the dangers of rhetoric that could undermine regional stability. Speaker 0 maintains it is possible to pursue peace through a viable, enforceable two-state framework, and urges focusing on disarming Hezbollah, negotiating with Lebanon, and pulling back to an international front to prevent further escalation. Overall, the dialogue juxtaposes urgent punitive action against Iran with the imperative of a negotiated regional settlement, disarmament of proxies, and a concrete two-state solution as the viable long-term path, while condemning certain actions and rhetoric that risk perpetuating conflict.

The speaker discusses the imminent ground takeover of Gaza and the ongoing meetings between foreign ministers and prime ministers. Benjamin Netanyahu has formally invited opposition party leaders to join a national emergency government during the war, with him as the head. The others would hold senior ministerial positions. The move is mostly symbolic, but they would have some authority. The speaker emphasizes that Israel is capable of defending itself and doesn't need direct involvement from the US. The conversation touches on rumors about Netanyahu's health and the spread of misinformation. The speaker also mentions the importance of Israel in technology and the potential US involvement if necessary. The transcript ends with a mention of celebrations in Iran.

The speakers discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and express aggressive views towards each other. They mention Israel's past retaliations and the need to change the reality on the ground. One speaker suggests giving Palestinians 7 days to leave and flattening them, while another suggests repatriating the Muslim population. They also mention Egypt's potential involvement and the possibility of religious conflicts escalating into international conflicts. The conversation ends with a brief mention of Saudi Arabia's lack of an army.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening, despite movements in the region by Israel prompted by advocacy. The pursuit of what is necessary for the United States to be clear about its stance on ending the war will continue.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening, despite movements in the region by Israel prompted by advocacy. The pursuit of what is necessary for the United States to be clear about ending the war will continue.

The discussion centers on claims that Hamas is sending missiles into Israel and that some missiles are coming from populated areas. The speaker says Hamas used money that came into Gaza for construction purposes—such as roads and other needs—and also used some of that money to build “very sophisticated tunnels” into Israel for military purposes and “for survival purposes.” The conversation turns into an argument about Israel’s right to resist. The speaker repeatedly affirms “Israel has a right to resist,” saying that if people do not accept this, they “don’t” understand the premise. Multiple interruptions occur as the speaker tries to answer a question that was asked. The exchange becomes focused on control of the microphone and who is allowed to speak. The speaker insists they are answering the question and objects to being “interrupted” or “disturbed.” Another participant challenges the interaction by arguing about the need for open discussion, describing a desire to “discuss it with people” and urging the other person to come down and be “democratic.” The speaker characterizes their ongoing responses as part of “democracy,” stating that the question was asked and they are answering it, and asking to be allowed to “let him finish.” The transcript ends with the speaker saying they do not want to be disturbed or interrupted while continuing their response.

The speaker discusses the difficulty of predicting the situation in Gaza, particularly regarding whether Israel will send ground forces. They mention that while there has been talk of eradicating Hamas, the Israelis may have realized that it would cause more trouble. Military force is not seen as a solution to the political problem, and the speaker highlights the dilemma Israel faces. They mention that bombing Gaza is disastrous and does not solve the problem, but not taking action allows Hamas to continue causing trouble. The speaker suggests that a two-state solution was the solution, but it is unlikely to happen due to Israel's right-wing politics. They conclude by stating that even if they were to advise Netanyahu, he wouldn't listen or be able to execute a two-state solution due to the current political climate in Israel.

The speaker states they never want to see a diplomatic resolution with Hamas. They say they wanted a ceasefire, but have always been committed to the destruction of Hamas. They add that they wanted a ceasefire, but have always made clear that they wanted to see a different authority moving forward in governance of Gaza.

The conversation centers on an extreme projection regarding Gaza. The speaker asserts an intention to erase Gaza and to relocate its people, specifically stating, “We are going to erase Gaza. We have to take the people there and send them to Libya.” This line signals a drastic and inflammatory plan involving population displacement and destruction of the territory. The dialogue then shifts to considering the future of Gaza, with the pointed question, “What do you see as the future for Gaza?” and a reply that there is “No future,” followed by questions that further illustrate a dehumanizing view of the region’s prospects. The questions—“No future. A parking lot? A dumping ground?”—are presented as rhetorical inquiries about what Gaza could become, implying a barren or ruinous outcome rather than a viable state or community. There is an assertion that the speakers had “agreement,” suggesting some prior consensus or deal, though the exact nature of that agreement is not detailed in the transcript provided. The dialogue then introduces a shift to current events: “Suddenly, they send some missiles,” followed by the claimed reaction, “Our people send missiles from inside.” This exchange frames a rapid escalation of hostilities, with missiles allegedly being launched from inside Gaza and a reciprocal acknowledgment that missiles were observed coming from Gaza. The speaker reflects on how these developments affect their ability to respond, asking, “So now we can answer them. So you think that's also something that's that's possible?” The repetition and phrasing indicate an openness to escalating or expanding retaliation, emphasizing a belief that “everything is possible.” The concluding and most reiterated assertion is, “Everything is possible. We are going to erase Gaza. We have to take the people there and send them to Libya.” This reinforces the central, extreme stance of erasing Gaza and relocating its inhabitants, framing it as an actionable objective tied to the events just described, including the missile exchanges and the perception of an ongoing conflict. Overall, the transcript presents a sequence of statements that depict an intent to erase Gaza and relocate its population to Libya, framed within a broader discussion of Gaza’s uncertain future, potential agreement, and a cycle of missile exchanges that are used to justify aggressive or retaliatory possibilities.

Speaker 0 says they still have the same gut instinct as initially, finding it “very hard to believe.” They describe having been to the Gaza border and claim that people cannot go “10 feet without running into” a 19-year-old with an AR-15 or an automatic machine gun, identifying them as IDF soldiers, and they state that “the whole country is surveilled.” They then discuss Israeli politics, saying that over the last nine months Israel was “on the brink of civil war,” and that “judicial stuff” led to “hundreds of thousands of Israelis” taking to the streets because Bibi Netanyahu was “basically redefining the Israeli constitution.” Speaker 0 says “some questions need to be asked,” specifically: whether there was a “stand down order” and whether it lasted six hours, adding, “I don’t believe it.” They argue that Israel is “the size of New Jersey,” and that from Jerusalem to the Gaza border a helicopter ride takes 45 minutes, making “six hours” seem unlikely. They ask whether someone in the government said “stand down,” calling it a “legitimate non-conspiracy question.” Speaker 0 claims “the whole country is the IDF” and states that they believe the government is going to “try to ethnically cleanse Gaza,” using the term “ethnically cleanse” while saying they “don’t use that term lightly.” They assert that officials are “talking about basically removing 2.5 million people from there.” They also say their “pattern recognition” over the last five years has become “pretty sharp,” citing examples including COVID, Maui fires, and Epstein, and concluding that when a story “doesn’t click,” “our guts are usually right.”

Speaker 0 believes that if Israel faces annihilation, it may use its nuclear arsenal, which they never admit to having. Speaker 0 states that Iran and Hezbollah need to understand that they cannot wipe out the Israeli people. Speaker 0 denies encouraging the use of nuclear weapons but suggests that Israel needs to consider all options if faced with total destruction. Speaker 0 believes that the US military being stretched is not Israel's fault and that the US should fund its military better. Speaker 1 expresses concern about the potential involvement of the United States in the conflict and the possibility of a wider war, given the situation in Ukraine and China. Speaker 0 dismisses these concerns, stating that the focus should be on Israel's survival.

A politician asks a soldier if it is possible to eradicate or uproot Hamas from Gaza. The soldier believes it is unlikely, as there is no strong political legitimacy in Israel. Without political legitimacy and clear objectives, it is impossible to make important decisions regarding a complex and risky intervention. The soldier acknowledges that the situation may change over time, but emphasizes the significant role that time plays. The soldier does not know the current direction of events.

The speakers discuss the possibility of a two-state solution and the former president's involvement in Ukraine negotiations. Speaker 1 asks Speaker 0 about reconsidering conditions on Israel, to which Speaker 0 responds that they believe they can find a solution. Speaker 1 mentions different types of two-state solutions, including countries without their own military and states with limitations. Speaker 0 mentions that BBS opposes the two-state solution but doesn't specify what he is open to. The conversation ends with Speaker 1 asking if they discussed it that morning.

Speaker 0 says a piece about Israel’s “obscene treatment” of Speaker 0’s country has an obvious takeaway that America’s “special ally is not actually an ally,” and that NBC News did not want readers to realize this. Speaker 0 claims the report’s authors repeatedly inserted “globalist propaganda” into the story, including the neocon talking point that Israelis are America’s “special friends,” while still presenting “eye-opening” information about Israel spying. Speaker 0 argues that throughout the entire NBC News piece, there is continued praise for Israel as “our greatest ally” and “special friend.” Speaker 1 says the piece lays praise on Israel and is about Israel spying, which they find “reprehensible.” Speaker 1 describes decades of belief that Israel is America’s best ally, an “island of democracy” amid “sea of chaos” in the Middle East, and that many Jewish people Speaker 1 personally knew seemed “like really good people.” Speaker 1 says that as “growing physical evidence” has emerged that Israel is “not quite who we thought they were” and that Israel “definitely” abuses America, the situation has become normalized. Speaker 1 claims that even when things have come out, “no action has been taken,” leading Israel to be “a little bit more bold,” doing actions “out in the open.” Speaker 1 cites an example involving Netanyahu and Lebanon: Speaker 1 says Netanyahu stated that a stop to fighting in Lebanon is a “non-negotiable requirement” for Iran to end the war, and that Speaker 1 believes Netanyahu will “do what I want anyway,” even if President Trump intervenes. Speaker 1 says Speaker 1 expects Trump may “hold off for a day or two,” but that Israel “they’re fighting again today.” Speaker 1 asks why the U.S. continues to support Israel and provide it with ammunition, weapons, political cover, and diplomatic cover “to keep doing things directly antithetical to our interests?” Speaker 0 responds, “It’s so frustrating.”

Speaker 0 expresses their opinion that Israel is not on the brink of a nuclear war, but could destroy Gaza if they wanted to. However, they acknowledge that the presence of civilians, including women and children, is the only reason Israel has not taken such action. Speaker 2 adds that some civilians in Gaza are cheering the murder of Israeli soldiers. Speaker 0 emphasizes that Israel is strong and the priority is to release Israeli hostages held by terrorists. They urge for calm and caution against expressing hysterical sentiments that could be celebrated by the enemy. Speaker 1 mentions being a veteran of the Yom Kippur War.

The Israeli hard right government has a mandate, and the speaker says they are “going to try to ethnically cleanse Gaza,” while also claiming Israel is talking about removing 2.5 million people from there. The speaker further states that the government has a mandate to “go seek justice and revenge,” and argues that the idea they need a truce or a peace treaty is “morally crap,” referencing what they say they have seen involving women and children being burned alive and dragged to the streets. The speaker then emphasizes their personal “pattern recognition” over the last five years, citing COVID, the Maui fires, and Epstein. They say that when they see a story and it “doesn’t click,” their “guts” are usually right. They also say they have been to Israel many times and describe the country as a fortress, claiming that at the Gaza border “you cannot go 10 feet without running into a 19-year-old with an AR-15 or an automatic machine gun that is an IDF soldier.” They also claim the entire country is surveilled. They then provide political context, saying they do not discuss Israeli politics often and that most Americans do not know it. The speaker claims that over the last nine months, Israel was “on the brink of civil war,” describing protests and street demonstrations involving hundreds of thousands of Israelis. They connect this to what they say was Benjamin Netanyahu redefining the Israeli constitution, stating that Netanyahu said the judicial branch has too much power and that planned protests against Netanyahu were expected to draw tens of thousands this week. The speaker says those protests “are all gone,” and claims Netanyahu has now formed an emergency government and has a mandate to lead. The speaker says they are “not willing to say” that Netanyahu knew or that there was intelligence “here,” but they say serious questions need to be asked. They ask whether there was a “stand down order,” stating “Was there a stand down order? Six hours?” They frame this as part of the questions they believe should be asked, alongside the earlier claims about the Israeli government’s mandate and the situation described at the Gaza border.

Speaker 0 asserts that “What happened in October 7 was an Israeli setup,” and questions whether Benjamin Netanyahu deliberately boosted Hamas to prevent a Palestinian state. The question is framed as a direct challenge: “Yeah. Sure. He deliberately and systematically even even told this on record. Whoever wants to avoid the threat of a two state solution has to support my policy of paying protection money to the Hamas.” The removal of ambiguity is emphasized by the speaker’s phrasing that this was done “with the permission of our prime minister” and involved letting Qatar transfer a huge amount of money in cash, “probably more than $1,400,000,000,” with the claimed effect of increasing Hamas’s power. Speaker 0 then shifts to interrogate a separate line of inquiry, asking whether there was a “stand down order,” repeating the question: “Was there a stand down order? Six hours? I don’t believe it.” The speaker emphasizes realism by labeling the question as legitimate and non-conspiratorial: “Was did somebody in the government say stand down? That is a legitimate non conspiracy question.” The closing remark asserts a collective identity and responsibility: “The whole country is the IDF. The whole country is.”

The speaker states to the Israeli leadership that they do not support expansionist ideas. They say the indigenous people of the land have rights that cannot be ignored, and that a fair solution must be found, not one dictated by any single group.