Netanyahu's appearance on popular Nelk Boys podcast draws criticism from right and left online
But Netanyahu's bid to appeal to young people appeared to backfire online, where the interview drew widespread criticism from viewers across the political spectrum.
His interviewers, Kyle Forgeard and Aaron 'Steiny' Steinberg, are members of the Nelk Boys, a group of social media influencers known for their vlogs and prank videos. The group, which has amassed more than 8.5 million subscribers on YouTube, attracted even more fans after its content began to highlight more conservative political figures, including President Donald Trump, whom the podcast interviewed in 2022, 2023 and 2024.
Netanyahu's hourlong interview, which dropped on the Nelk Boys' 'Full Send Podcast' on Monday, was met with overwhelmingly critical reception online, with viewers accusing the podcasters of asking softball questions and neglecting to push back against Netanyahu's claims.
Netanyahu and his government continue to face worldwide outrage over the war in Gaza that followed the Hamas-led terrorist attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
The podcast's YouTube channel lost more than 10,000 subscribers within a day, according to the social media tracking platform Social Blade. On YouTube, top comments on the episode were critical of the hosts' apparent lack of preparedness.
'I see so much stuff about what's going on in Israel and Iran and Palestine, and to be honest, I just really don't know what is going on there,' Forgeard said in the episode. Steinberg said he was similarly hoping to 'get educated' by interviewing Netanyahu.
At one point, the topic of discussion turned to Netanyahu's and Trump's shared affection for hamburgers. Asked about his go-to McDonald's order, Netanyahu revealed that he prefers Burger King, leading Steinberg to respond, appalled: 'That's your worst take, I think.'
Throughout the rest of the interview, Netanyahu condemned anti-Israel protesters as 'un-American' and contrasted life in Israel with life under the oppressive regime in Iran. He also railed against New York's Democratic mayoral nominee, Zohran Mamdani, calling his proposals for the city 'nonsense.' (Mamdani has called Israel's military actions in Gaza 'genocide' and has said he would arrest Netanyahu, who is the subject of a warrant for his arrest from the International Criminal Court, if he visited New York City.)
Asked why he's 'so hated worldwide,' Netanyahu answered: 'Well, a lot of propaganda. First of all, I'm not hated worldwide.' He said Israel has received a lot of goodwill from many in Europe, claiming that Israel's attack on Iran also 'liberated them, because those Iranian missiles were geared at Europe, too, and ultimately at America.'
'The propaganda is there, I don't deny it,' Netanyahu said. 'But people also have, you know, sometimes the truth beckons. And what Israel did with President Trump is safeguard free societies from a menace. I mean, this Iranian regime hangs gays from cranes.'
On Monday, 25 countries, including Britain, Japan and many European nations, called on Israel to end the war in Gaza — a sign of Israel's traditional allies' dismay over the conflict's humanitarian toll. Close to 60,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since Oct. 7, 2023, according to Palestinian health authorities, with much of the enclave's population driven from their homes and pushed to the edge of starvation.
The Israeli military and government officials have repeatedly accused Hamas of exploiting civilian sites, including hospitals and schools, as cover for its operations, an accusation that health officials and Hamas have denied.
Israel has also faced mounting accusations of war crimes and genocide, including in a case brought by South Africa before the International Court of Justice, the United Nations' top court. The court last year ordered Israel to do everything it could to prevent genocidal acts in Gaza. Both Israel and the United States have rejected accusations of genocide.
Online, clips of Netanyahu's interview drew viral backlash from viewers, many of whom accused the Nelk Boys of platforming 'genocide propaganda' and compared interviewing Netanyahu to interviewing Adolf Hitler.
Far-left political streamer Hasan Piker and far-right white supremacist Nick Fuentes were among those who criticized the latest 'Full Send Podcast' episode Monday during separate livestreams on their platforms.
'You just basically presented someone who is a war criminal, someone who is doing a genocide, in a somewhat neutral light,' Piker told Forgeard and Steinberg in his stream. 'And you can't be neutral when you have someone like Benjamin Netanyahu directly in an opportunity to talk to him. But that's what happened, so there is moral culpability here for you guys individually.'
He added that while he would agree to interview Netanyahu if he were given the opportunity, he would be 'well-equipped' to fact-check his statements and push back against potentially dubious claims.
Forgeard, in response, countered that their style of interviewing could "give us the opportunity to get the biggest people in the world."
"And I think you'll know by the 'Full Send Podcast' when you watch it, it's like, 'Hey, these guys are going to get big guests. We might not necessarily get these guys grilling these people,'" Forgeard said. "And that's just what you're going to come to expect."
Fuentes, in his own stream with Forgeard and Steinberg, also questioned the moral equivalency between himself, who has faced condemnation online for his views and beliefs, and 'a foreign head of state who is killing women and children.'
'This is somebody who's in the process of committing what is effectively an ethnic cleansing and a genocide,' Fuentes said.
The interview struggled to land positively even among some supporters of Netanyahu's military agenda. In The Times of Israel on Tuesday, contributor Elkana Bar Eitan expressed his disappointment that Netanyahu 'blew it' on the podcast, despite the lack of pushback he got from the hosts.
'It was painful to witness how Netanyahu, once a master communicator, missed this opportunity and showed that he's lost his touch, even in English,' he wrote in an opinion piece. 'Despite the friendly atmosphere and softball questions, Netanyahu came across as completely detached from reality.'
A representative for the 'Full Send Podcast' declined to comment.
In a video responding to the backlash, Steinberg and Forgeard said they plan to 'give the other side the opportunity' to speak on their next episode, though it's unclear what guest they're referring to.
'Someone has to do it,' Forgeard said. 'And if we have to take the fall and be the bad guys for having the controversial people on, I think we're willing to do it.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
19 minutes ago
- Spectator
The BBC has finally done something right
This isn't a sentiment you'll have read much in recent weeks, given the BBC's series of appalling misjudgements and editorial disasters. But here goes: Three cheers for the BBC. Its critics are completely wrong and its decision making is spot on. To be clear, I'm not referring to its coverage of Bob Vylan at Glastonbury, the Gaza documentary narrated by the son of a Hamas minister or the BBC's sacking of the two Masterchef presenters. I'm talking about something it has actually got right – but for which it is nonetheless being lambasted: the decision not to decamp its entire political team, and all its political programmes, to this year's party conferences. Previously the lunchtime Politics Live programme has been broadcast from what we used to call the two main party conferences – Labour and the Conservatives – along with Newsnight and much of the news channel's output. To do that, the BBC has taken around 80 journalists and technicians. That compares with three for ITV and eight for Channel 4. Bloated, you say? In years gone by, it was possible to see the validity of such largesse in staffing and coverage. The party conferences used to matter. For hacks, they provided an invaluable opportunity to take 'the feel' of party members and to speak to politicians in a less guarded environment – especially in the bars late at night. For Labour, the proceedings in the hall also mattered, with its jargon of composites, motions and references back all feeding into an atmosphere where votes counted for something. I spent too many years having to attend them, first as a policy wonk and later as a hack. You really did have to be there. There was the Bennite wars of the 1980s, the Militant years and John Smith's 1993 OMOV (one member, one vote) fight. There was Tony Blair's first conference speech in 1994, when he argued for the abolition of Clause IV (Labour's constitutional commitment to 'the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange') and almost no one in the hall realised what he was saying. Labour conference was the arena in which the party's future was played out, with fringe meeting battles and – literally – smoke-filled rooms. Although the conferences mattered, I hated them. All the people I wanted to spend time with I could do so in London. I never got to grips with being forced to spend time with people I had no wish to spend time with, but in a secure area. Add to that the permanent stench of stale air and the annual conference cold, and I was thrilled when I no longer had to go. Party conferences now are just stage shows, like the US conventions, which exist solely to provide fodder for social media clips of Keir Starmer and Kemi Badenoch's speeches and to give the mainstream news broadcasters something to talk about. For the party faithful they're a fun – each to their own – few days of political self-indulgence and a chance to get drunk with people you've seen on telly. For everyone else, they are meaningless for anything other than the set piece speeches – which could equally be broadcast, like Keir Starmer's first as Labour leader during covid in 2020, online from an empty room. The BBC is quite right to call out the emperor's new clothes. The conferences don't need – and don't deserve – the broadcast army of hacks they've always had. Not least because now they're not even necessarily the most relevant gatherings, with Reform increasingly solid ahead in the polls. Caroline Dinenage, chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, told PoliticsHome, which broke the story: 'It's a surprising move by the BBC, who took over 500 of their staff to Glastonbury.' She has a point – but the point isn't that the BBC should take its usual army to the conferences, it's that it took an absurd number to Glastonbury. PoliticsHome also quotes a BBC source: 'We're really upset about it.' Chacun à son goût.
Daily Mail
19 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Albanese's TOUGHEST talk yet on Gaza - but he's slammed by some for not being tough enough on the REAL culprits
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has given his harshest assessment yet of Israel during the ongoing conflict in Gaza, but the Coalition has slammed him for not holding Hamas accountable. The comments, which were issued on Friday, followed increasing concerns about the blockade of aid to the region after the release of photos showing children starving. 'Israel's denial of aid and the killing of civilians, including children, seeking access to water and food cannot be defended or ignored,' Albanese said. 'Every innocent life matters. Every Israeli. Every Palestinian. 'We call on Israel to comply immediately with its obligations under international law. This includes allowing the United Nations and NGOs to carry out their lifesaving work safely and without hindrance.' His comments were echoed by Foreign Minister Penny Wong, who called the situation a 'humanitarian catastrophe' that has left Australians distressed. Albanese also said Israel should abandon any further plans that would lead to permanently displacing Palestinian people. But he stopped short of saying Australia would join France in recognising Palestinian statehood after the European nation became the largest Western power to signal it would make the announcement. The Prime Minister instead said recognising the 'legitimate aspirations of Palestinian people for a state of their own' was a bipartisan position. 'Australia is committed to a future where both the Israeli and Palestinian peoples can live in peace and safety, within internationally recognised borders,' he said. 'Until that day, every effort must be made here and now to safeguard innocent life and end the suffering and starvation of the people of Gaza.' But on Friday afternoon, the Coalition lashed Albanese, with shadow foreign affairs minister Michaelia Cash claiming he had missed an opportunity to name Hamas as the primary obstacle. 'The Coalition has strong concerns about the worsening humanitarian situation in Gaza,' she said. 'It is disappointing that Prime Minister Albanese's statement about Gaza once again fails to place any blame on Hamas, a listed terrorist organisation, for the delays in aid reaching the people of Gaza.' She said outrage over the crisis should be directed squarely at Hamas: 'Hamas and its allies have tried to disrupt the flow of aid into Gaza and have stolen humanitarian aid for their own purposes.' 'This war began because of Hamas's abhorrent attack on Israeli civilians, where over 1,200 were murdered in cold blood, and they bear responsibility for the continuation of this conflict.' Cash also criticised Hamas for refusing to recognise Israel's right to exist. 'They could end the suffering of the people of Gaza by freeing the remaining Israeli hostages and laying down their weapons,' she said. Ceasefire negotiations between Israel and Hamas have recently collapsed, with both Israel and the United States reportedly withdrawing from talks. With aid being throttled at the border and all entry points to Gaza controlled by Israel, former USAID official Jeremy Konyndyk said Australia and other nations must do more. 'Nothing about this is natural or organic - it's 100 per cent man-made,' the Refugees International president told ABC Radio. 'We are at - if not past - a tipping point.' The Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, which began operations in May, has been accused of obstructing operations by the United Nations and other aid groups, and putting starving Palestinians in danger. According to Mr Konyndyk, its aid packages were small and insufficient and the foundation's facilities were located far from population centres. Israel, which began letting in only a trickle of supplies to Gaza in recent months, has previously blamed Hamas for disrupting food distribution and accused it of using stolen aid to fund its war effort. Israel has enforced a complete embargo on humanitarian aid and medical supplies for almost three months after a ceasefire deal collapsed earlier in 2025. In recent months, more than 800 Palestinians have been killed while seeking aid, many of them shot by the Israeli military, UN sources have found. Israel's military campaign was launched after Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, 2023, killing 1200 people and taking 251 hostages. Albanese also condemned the 'terror and brutality' of Hamas and repeated calls for the release of the remaining hostages.
Telegraph
20 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Anti-Trump protests make me embarrassed to be Scottish
During a previous visit to Scotland by Donald Trump, the late comedian Janey Godley caused a stir by holding up a placard describing the president as a c-word. To many this appeared vulgar and offensive, and just a little lacking in imagination. But to many within Scotland, this insult soared into the stratosphere of Wildean pithiness, revealing Godley's genius, courage and – this is Scotland, after all – her downright goodness as a human being. To many Scots, however, the knowledge that Godley's insult was being broadcast across the globe and would be seen by our American friends was a source of embarrassment. Name-calling? That's the apotheosis of political satire in Scotland? Really? Today there will be more protests at the start of the president's five-day visit to Scotland, which will take in his two golf courses here. If only there were a way of explaining to our American cousins that such protests are less about the president himself or his policies, or even about the contempt in which the protesters hold the US citizens who voted for him last year. They are about one thing and one thing only: the protesters themselves. The Trump visit is a public relations opportunity for the likes of Scottish Green MSPs and activists, as well as a hodgepodge of the usual people: the climate change, refugee rights, trans rights and, naturally, anti-Israel activists. Perhaps they imagine that their earnest sloganising and placard-waving will have some influence on the president himself – in which case, it's disturbing that they harbour such ignorance of the nature of their hated target. More likely, they probably believe that their antics will impress and attract their fellow Scots, although to what end who can tell? When the president has dusted off his golf clubs and set off home across the Atlantic, the chief aim of the protesters will have been achieved: they will feel good about themselves. They will still retain just a modicum of the righteous indignation that motivated them to rehearse, memorise and perform the weekend's radical slogans, but the feeling will be one of overwhelming self-satisfaction that they stuck it to The Man and – more importantly – that they were captured on video doing so. For the sane majority of Scots and their fellow Brits, the visit by an American president – any American president – is a valuable opportunity to forge a deeper friendship and to develop new trade, political and military ties. Having Trump could be particularly advantageous to the UK, given the uncertainty in the global economy over the US administration's threatened and actual tariff regime. Britain has managed so far to escape the worst of the policy's impacts and even secured a comprehensive US-UK trade deal. There is far more to be gained from treating the president with respect than with derision. But that's not how our domestic army of middle-class, virtue-signalling, keffiyeh-adorned protesters see things. Their need to be seen protesting Trump – and it is a need, not a preference – simply must be sated. During the president's first term, even the House of Commons surrendered to this performative self-indulgence, with the then Speaker, John Bercow, shredding his obligations to political neutrality and announcing that he would not authorise the use of Westminster Hall for Trump to address both houses of Parliament – even before such a request was made. The announcement had its intended effect, not so much in its rebuke to the president (even if he had been aware of the Speaker's snub) but in the thousands of Twitter users praising Bercow as 'progressive'. Consider this question: were this weekend's protesters unable to share memes and videos of their activities on social media, if the TV news cameras didn't cover their activities or invite them to explain their personal animosity towards the president, would they bother to turn out at all? If a protest happens and nobody notices, does it make a sound? Fortunately for the semi-skimmed oat milk latte crowd, such a scenario is unlikely. They will have their few seconds of notoriety on the TV news bulletins and across Twitter/X and Instagram. They will not seek to try to understand why a man like Donald Trump was elected in the first place, or why their preferred candidate was so humiliatingly rejected. It is enough for them to be angry – or appear to be angry – at the president's very presence in their country. But a plea to all my American friends: please don't assume that these protests represent the whole, or even a large minority, of Scotland. They do not. They're just embarrassing attention-seekers that we all must put up with in a modern democracy. Like toddlers, they'll eventually get tired of their own tantrums and have to be put to bed, leaving the grown-ups to have an adult conversation in their absence.
