Norm Finkelstein DOGWALKS Destiny In Israel Debate
Summary
TLDR这段视频剧本深入探讨了以色列和巴勒斯坦的长期冲突,通过Lex Fredman主持的五小时辩论,揭示了双方观点的激烈碰撞。辩论中,学者Norman Finkelstein和Mueen Rabani代表巴勒斯坦立场,而Benny Morris和YouTuber Steven Benell(化名Destiny)则捍卫亲犹太复国主义立场。Destiny在辩论中显得力不从心,而Morris和Destiny则试图用各种宣传手段为以色列的立场辩护。视频强调了巴勒斯坦人民的苦难,以及国际法在当前冲突中的适用性和重要性。
Takeaways
- 📚 辩论涉及以色列和巴勒斯坦的复杂历史和政治争议,揭示了不同观点和论据。
- 🗣️ 参与辩论的有学者、分析师、历史学家和YouTuber,他们的背景和专业深度差异显著。
- 🤔 辩论中出现了对以色列立场的辩护,包括对历史事件的不同解读和对当前政策的辩解。
- 🏠 讨论了早期犹太复国主义领袖对于在巴勒斯坦建立一个犹太国家所必需的暴力和冲突的认识。
- 🚫 巴勒斯坦人对1948年联合国分治计划的拒绝,以及他们对失去家园的反应被视为合理且不可避免。
- 🏛️ 辩论中指出,犹太复国主义的民族主义理念与基于公民身份的民族主义相对立,强调了民族国家的概念。
- 👥 讨论了西方大国在以色列-巴勒斯坦冲突中的作用,以及它们对以色列政策的支持。
- 🚨 辩论指出了以色列对加沙地带的封锁和对平民的攻击,以及这些行为与国际法的冲突。
- 🤷♂️ 一些参与者对以色列可能犯下的战争罪行和种族灭绝行为持否认态度,使用复杂的法律术语来回避问题。
- 📖 对国际法的引用在辩论中是选择性的,根据是否有利于以色列的论点而变化。
- 🌏 最后,辩论提出了一个核心问题:在当前的加沙地带局势下,国际规则和法律是否能够抵抗正在发生的暴行。
Q & A
视频中提到的辩论主题是什么?
-视频中提到的辩论主题是关于以色列和巴勒斯坦之间的冲突,特别是以色列对巴勒斯坦的政策和历史背景。
辩论的参与者有哪些人?
-辩论的参与者包括作者和学者Norman Finkelstein,分析师和研究员Mouin Rabbani,作家和历史学家Benny Morris,以及YouTuber Steven Bonnell(也被称为Destiny)。
为什么Destiny在辩论中显得不合适?
-Destiny在辩论中显得不合适,因为他缺乏与其他参与者相同的学术和历史背景,导致他在讨论中显得不够深刻和相关。
视频中提到的Hasbara Playbook是什么?
-Hasbara Playbook指的是一系列支持以色列政策的宣传策略,用于辩护和正当化以色列的行为。
Norman Finkelstein在辩论中如何描述以色列的历史观?
-Norman Finkelstein描述以色列的历史观为一种童话般的历史观,认为只有犹太人是受害者,任何对这些受害的正义回应都应由与大屠杀无关的巴勒斯坦人承担。
Destiny在辩论中提出的关于Zionism(犹太复国主义)的主要观点是什么?
-Destiny认为Zionism并不一定意味着大规模驱逐阿拉伯人,他质疑犹太复国主义是否必然需要通过暴力或驱逐来实现目标,并举例说明犹太复国主义者曾接受过包含大量阿拉伯人口的方案。
Mouin Rabbani对巴勒斯坦人拒绝1948年联合国分治计划的看法是什么?
-Mouin Rabbani认为巴勒斯坦人拒绝1948年联合国分治计划是合理的,因为该计划不公平地将他们的土地分配给犹太国家,而巴勒斯坦人有权拒绝将其家园的55%交给犹太人。
在辩论中,Norman Finkelstein如何定义民族主义?
-Norman Finkelstein定义民族主义为两种类型:一种是基于公民身份的民族主义,另一种是基于种族或民族的民族主义,并指出Zionism属于后一种,强调建立一个只属于犹太人的国家。
Benny Morris在辩论中如何反驳关于以色列封锁加沙的指责?
-Benny Morris反驳关于以色列封锁加沙的指责,认为封锁是对火箭袭击的合理回应,并质疑国际组织对封锁的法律裁定,认为这些裁定在现实世界中不相关。
视频结尾对当前以色列和巴勒斯坦局势的总结是什么?
-视频结尾总结了当前以色列和巴勒斯坦局势,指出以色列的行为导致了严重的人道主义危机,并批评国际社会在面对这些罪行时的虚伪和双重标准。
Outlines
😣 以色列-巴勒斯坦辩论深度剖析
Lex Fredman主持了一场关于以色列和巴勒斯坦问题的长达5小时的辩论,尽管辩论有时显得沮丧和对抗,但揭示了许多深刻见解。辩论中包括了不同立场的学者和分析师,如Norman Finkelstein和Mueen Rabbani代表巴勒斯坦视角,而Benny Morris和YouTuber Steven Benell(也称为Destiny)则代表亲犹太复国主义立场。特别指出Destiny在整个辩论中显得力不从心,而其他参与者则试图使用各种宣传手段来捍卫以色列的立场,但面对不可否认和无法辩护的现实,这些手段显得苍白无力。
😠 犹太复国主义与巴勒斯坦人的权利
在辩论中,讨论了犹太复国主义的历史观点,以及它如何影响巴勒斯坦人的命运。批评者认为,犹太复国主义从一开始就计划了对巴勒斯坦人的种族清洗,而支持者则辩称这是不可避免的。Mueen Rabbani反驳了巴勒斯坦人拒绝1948年联合国分治计划是出于反犹太主义的观点,强调巴勒斯坦人拒绝在自己的土地上建立一个排他的犹太国家是合理的。Norman Finkelstein进一步阐述了两种民族主义理论,并指出犹太复国主义属于基于种族的民族主义,这不可避免地导致了对巴勒斯坦土著居民的不公正对待。
😡 西方的善意与巴勒斯坦人的恶意
辩论中还涉及了对西方大国和巴勒斯坦人意图的假设,这些假设往往基于种族主义世界观,认为西方人是文明的,而阿拉伯人是野蛮的。Destiny在辩论中表现出对西方大国的盲目信任,认为以色列及其盟友总是出于好意行事。然而,证据显示,以色列政府有意针对平民,这与Destiny和Benny Morris所辩护的以色列不会有意针对平民的观点相矛盾。
😤 以色列战争罪行的双重标准
Mueen Rabbani在辩论中指出了对以色列和西方行动与巴勒斯坦行动的判断存在巨大的盲点和伪善。例如,以色列在黎巴嫩对平民的暴行被轻描淡写,而哈马斯的任何行为都被立即定性为战争罪。Destiny和Benny Morris在辩论中对以色列可能犯下的战争罪行持怀疑态度,而对哈马斯的行为则毫不犹豫地定性为战争罪。
😠 以色列政策导致巴勒斯坦人饥饿
辩论中讨论了以色列政策导致加沙地带巴勒斯坦人饥饿的情况。Benny Morris否认有任何巴勒斯坦人因饥饿而死亡,尽管有证据显示以色列的政策有意导致巴勒斯坦人挨饿。Oxfam的报告详细说明了以色列使用多种方法故意让巴勒斯坦人挨饿,包括阻止援助、任意官僚程序和针对平民的无差别攻击。
😡 国际法的不一致性与选择性
Destiny和Benny在辩论中表现出对国际法的不一致性和选择性。当国际法对以色列有利时,他们强调其重要性;当国际法对以色列不利时,他们则认为其无关紧要。Norm和Moeen批评了这种对国际法的选择性应用,并强调如果我们要遵循法律,那么就应该一致地应用,而不是根据情况选择性地忽略。
😢 国际规则在加沙的考验
最后,辩论触及了在加沙地带正在发生的事件对国际规则的考验。随着世界目睹了巴勒斯坦儿童挨饿和加沙的毁灭,人们开始质疑第二次世界大战后设立的国际规则是否能够承受正在发生的种族灭绝。Moeen强调,要么我们遵守共同的国际标准,要么我们就生活在法律的丛林中,所有人都可以成为野兽。
Mindmap
Keywords
💡以色列
💡巴勒斯坦
💡犹太复国主义
💡种族清洗
💡1948年联合国分治计划
💡哈斯巴拉
💡集体惩罚
💡民族主义
💡人道主义危机
💡国际法
Highlights
播客主持人Lex Fridman近期主持了一场关于以色列和巴勒斯坦的辩论,辩论长达5小时,揭示了双方观点。
辩论中,学者Norman Finkelstein和分析师Mueen Al-Jubeh代表巴勒斯坦观点,而历史学家Benny Morris和YouTuber Steven Benell代表亲犹太复国主义者立场。
Steven Benell,也被称为Destiny,在辩论中显得力不从心,多次被Norman Finkelstein驳倒。
辩论显示了捍卫以色列立场所需的无知、故意视而不见和辩论技巧。
辩论中讨论了犹太复国主义历史上的种族清洗和对巴勒斯坦人的迫害。
Destiny质疑犹太复国主义从一开始就将人口转移作为核心和必要元素的观点。
Mueen Al-Jubeh强调巴勒斯坦人拒绝1948年联合国分治计划的合理性。
Norman Finkelstein批评了犹太复国主义民族主义的两种形式,并指出其固有的排他性。
辩论中揭示了西方对以色列行为的盲目支持和对巴勒斯坦人苦难的忽视。
Destiny在辩论中表现出对西方大国善意的几乎宗教般的信仰。
Benny Morris和Destiny都对以色列故意针对平民的行为表示怀疑。
Mueen Al-Jubeh揭露了对以色列和西方行为的双重标准和虚伪。
Destiny在辩论中使用了辩论技巧来转移话题,试图使Norman Finkelstein和Mueen Al-Jubeh处于守势。
辩论中讨论了以色列是否在加沙地带实施了种族灭绝政策。
Destiny试图通过复杂性来混淆种族灭绝的定义,以避免直面以色列可能的种族灭绝行为。
Norman Finkelstein和Mueen Al-Jubeh坚持国际法的重要性,并批评了以色列对国际法的有选择性遵守。
辩论以对国际法的讨论结束,提出了是否所有国家都应遵守相同的国际规则的问题。
辩论反映了当前加沙地带正在发生的严重人道主义危机和国际法的挑战。
Transcripts
Crystal what are you taking a look at
podcaster Lex fredman recently hosted a
roughly 5our long debate on Israel
Palestine that was frustrating combative
at times but nevertheless
extraordinarily revealing the debate
featured author and Scholar Norman
finlin analyst and researcher muen
robani arguing the Palestinian
perspective on the pro Zionist side you
had author and historian Benny Morris
and YouTuber Steven benell also known as
Destiny now if your immediate reaction
is that one of these individuals doesn't
quite fit in with the rest you are
correct and it was painfully obvious the
entire 5 hours that Destiny was wildly
onside of his depth in fact although
many of the viral clips from the debate
involved Destiny's humiliation at the
hands of Norm finlin the truth is that
for most of the debate he was kind of
irrelevant sitting like a child at the
grown-up's table his presence was
nevertheless useful for helping to
illustrate the combination of ignorance
willful blindness and debate bro tricks
of the trade that are required to fully
defend the Israeli position at this
point in time but Morris and Destiny
threw every propaganda device in the
hasbara Playbook up against the wall to
see what would stick so let's see how it
went in the face of what at this point
is an undeniable and indefensible
reality so first up any good hpar
campaign has got to start with a fairy
tale view of history now in this V
history the only permitted victims are
Jewish people who no doubt were horribly
victimized in the Holocaust and in this
history the only just response to those
atrocities is not for the US or the UK
or Germany or the Soviet Union to
provide justice peace and safety for the
Jewish people but rather to impose that
burden entirely on a people who had
nothing to do with the Holocaust and who
had in fact been by and large living
peaceably alongside indigenous Jews for
centuries in other words the only
solution to a European atrocity was to
give license to an additional atrocity
the ethnic cleansing of the Native Arab
Palestinian population from their own
land and the only acceptable response of
that palestin population was then to
meekly accept their dispossession to do
otherwise is to prove that Arabs from
the beginning were violent unreasonable
and anti-semitic this was a matter of
quite a lot of debate at the beginning
of the podcast here for example is
Destiny challenging the idea that
expulsion or ethnic cleansing was a core
and necessary element of Zionism from
the onset a claim that gets brought up a
lot has to do with the inevitability of
transfer in Zionism or the idea that as
soon as the Jews envisioned a state in
Palestine they knew that it would
involve some Mass transfer of population
perhaps a mass expulsion um I'm sure
we'll talk about Plan D or Plan D at
some point the issue that I run into is
while you can find quotes from leaders
while you can find maybe desires
expressed in Diaries I feel like it's
hard to truly ever know if there would
have been Mass transfer in the face of
Arab peace because I feel like every
time there was a huge deal on the table
that would have had a sizable Jewish and
Arab population living together the
Arabs would reject it out of hand so for
instance when we say that transfer was
inevitable when we say that zionists
would have never accepted you know a
sizable Arab population how do you
explain the acceptance of the 47
partition plan that would have had a
huge Arab population living in the
Jewish state is your contention that
after the acceptance of that after the
establishment of that state that Jews
would have slowly started to expel all
of these Arab citizens from their
country or how do you explained that in
Lucan a couple years later that Israel
was willing to formally Annex the Gaza
Strip and make 200,000 or so people
those citizens but but I'm I'm just
curious how how do we get this idea of
Zionism always means Mass transfer when
there were times at least early on in
the history of Israel and and a little
bit before it where Israel would have
accepted a state that would have had a
massive Arab population in it is your
yeah is your idea that they would have
just slowly expelled them afterwards yes
in fact expulsion or apartheid is the
only logical outcome of establishing a
Jewish state in a land that was and is
is majority Muslim Arab Zionist leaders
at the time were pretty open about this
and about the necessity of violence and
conflict with that indigenous population
for example Joseph whites head of the
Jewish agency's colonization Department
said in 1940 quote between ourselves it
must be clear that there is no room for
both peoples together in this country we
shall not achieve our goal if the Arabs
are in this small country there is no
other way than to transfer the Arabs
from here to neighboring countries all
of them not one Village not One Tribe
should be left so pretty clearcut and
there are plenty of other historical
quotes besides that that make it clear
early Zionist leaders realized their
ideology would inevitably result in
conflict with Palestinians some
acknowledged that Arab resistance was in
fact logical and even just and that they
would also fervently resist displacement
if the roles had been reversed now it is
this point about the reasonable and in
fact inevitable nature of Palestinian
resistance to Zionism that M Rabani
picks up on in doing so he lays waste to
the idea that Palestinians in rejecting
the original 1948 un partition plan were
out of line or even that it was
inherently anti-semitic to reject a
Jewish State being established on a
portion of their land at all I mean um
uh one doesn't have to sympathize with
the
Palestinians um to recognize that they
have now been a stateless people for 7 5
years can you name any country yours for
example or yours that would be prepared
to give
55%
25% 10% of your country to the
Palestinians of course not and so um the
issue was not the existence of Jews in
Palestine um they had been there for
centuries and of course they had ties to
Palestine and particularly to Jerusalem
M and and other places going back
centuries if not Millennia um but the
idea of establishing an
exclusively Jewish State at the expense
of those who are already living there I
think it was right to reject that and I
don't think we can look back now 75
years later and say well you should have
accepted losing 55% of your Homeland
because you ended up losing 78% of it
the addition and the remaining 22% was
occupied in
1967 that's that's not how things work
yeah um and I can I can imagine I can
imagine an American rejecting giving 10%
of the United States to the Palestinians
and if that rejection leads to war and
you lose half your country I doubt that
50 years from now you're going to say
well maybe I should have accepted that
so they didn't accept the establishment
of an explicitly Jewish State because
the inevitable outcome was some version
of exactly the parthe ethnic cleansing
and now out andout genocide that we are
seeing play out this was a point that
Norman finlin made quite eloquently
talking about the version of nationalism
Zionism represents most theorists of
nationalism say there are two kinds of
nationalism one is a nationalism based
on citizenship you become a citizen
you're integral to the country that's
sometimes called political nationalism
and then there's another kind of
national ISM and that says the state
should not belong to its
citizens it should belong to an ethnic
group each ethnic group should have its
own State it's usually called the German
romantic idea of
nationalism
Zionism is
squarely in the jewi German romantic
idea that was the whole point of Zionism
we don't want to be bundists and be one
more ethnic minority in
Russia we don't want to become citizens
and just become a Jewish people in
England or France we want our own
State like the Arabs are 23 States no
wait let's before we get to the Arabs
let's get let's stick to the Jews for a
moment or the Zionist we want our own
State and in that
concept of wanting your own State the
minority at best lives on
sufferance and at worst gets expelled
that's the logic of the German romantic
Zionist idea of a state that's why they
Zion
so the truth is the desires of the early
zionists especially after the Holocaust
but even before given the number of
violent pams in Europe were completely
understandable as the cause of black
nationalism a similar nationalist
ideology given the horrors of slavery
and Jim Crow and other discrimination
also so understandable but it's also
true that though their aspirations were
understandable in reality Palestine was
not a land without a people and
realization of those Zionist aspirations
in Palestine required committing grave
injustices against the people who were
presently living in that land now in
order to accept the fairy tale version
of history and to accept the current
fairy tale version of Israel version Joe
Biden seems to believe wholeheartedly in
where the Israeli government would never
intentionally Target civilians or engage
in a partite or have ethnic cleansing as
a policy goal in order to accept those
Disney versions of reality you got to
make a Bedrock underlying assumption
that Western powers in every instance
have good intentions and Palestinians in
every instance have bad intentions now
oftentimes these assumptions are based
in racist World Views in which
westerners are inherently civilized and
Arabs are inherently barbarians
Netanyahu hints at this when he
describes their genocidal assault on
Gaza as being a conflict between the
sons of Light and the sons of Darkness
now this unshakable belief in the
goodness of Western Powers was evident
throughout the debate in a jaw-dropping
moment Destiny reveals himself to be
fully captured by an almost religious
Devotion to that benevolent view of
Western Powers take a listen it was
correctly brought up that I believe that
Ben gurian had um I think scho benam
describes it as an obsession with
getting validation or support from
Western States um Great Britain and then
a couple decades later explains the Su
War the crisis exactly correct that was
one of the major motivators the idea to
work with Britain and France on a
military
operation but then the question again I
go back to if that is true if beneran if
the early uh Israel saw themselves as a
western Fashion Nation how could we
possibly imagine that they would have
engaged in the transfer of some 400,000
Arabs after accepting the partition plan
would that not have completely and
totally destroyed their legitimacy in
the eyes of the entire Western world
would there not have been how not if you
thought the US and the UK would object
at any point to naked barbarism against
Palestinians then the past several
months should have thoroughly disabused
you of this notion the idea that Israel
and its allies are always operating with
good intentions is also incredibly imper
in how incredulous Benny Morris and Desy
both are at the notion Israel would
intentionally Target civilians now you
would be very familiar with the
arguments that were proferred in that
section of the debate essentially both
of them argued that if civilians are
killed then they must have been human
Shields or at the very worst they were
regrettably killed due to the one-off
actions of a few Rogue soldiers such
atrocities could not not possibly be the
result of official Israeli government
policy of course a look at the evidence
renders this view absurd after October
7th the Israeli defense minister
announced to the world a top- down
policy of Complete Siege of the civilian
population that Collective punishment
has continued to a sufficient extent
that children are now literally starving
to death and Gaza is now the site of the
worst levels of acute hunger in the
entire world this in and of itself
disproves the fantasy that Israeli
governments would never Target civilians
intentionally that's to say nothing of
the vast destruction and death toll
which is inconsistent with a view that
the problem of Civilian casualties is
simply the result of a few bad apples
the entire Gaza Strip population has
clearly been targeted now in the debate
M Rabani does a phenomenal job of
identifying this massive blind spot and
hypocrisy when it comes to the Judgment
of Israeli or Western actions vers
versus Palestinian actions this
particular section has to do with
documented Israeli atrocities committed
against civilians in Lebanon take a
listen it sounds cold to say it but war
is tragic and civilians die there is no
war that this has not happened in in the
history of all of humankind the
statement that Israel might take care
not to Target civilians is not
incompatible with a diary entry from
someone who said they saw civilians
getting killed I think that sometimes we
do a lot of weird games when we talk
about International humanitarian law or
laws that govern conflict where we say
things like civilians dying is a war
crime or civilian homes or hospitals
getting destroyed is necessarily a war
crime or is necessarily somebody
intentionally targeting civilians
without making distinctions between
military targets or civilian ones I
think that when we analyze different
attacks or when we talk about the
conduct of a military I think it's
important to understand uh like
perspectively from the unit uh of
analysis of the actual military
committing the acts what's happening and
what are the decisions being made rather
than just saying retrospectively oh well
a lot of civilians died not very many
you know military people died
comparatively speaking so uh it must
have been war crimes especially when
you've got another side um fast forward
to Hamas that intentionally attempts to
induce those same civilian numbers
because Hamas is guilty of any War crime
that you would potentially accuse and
this is according to Amnesty
International people that Norm loves to
site Hamas is guilty of all of these
same war crimes of them failing to take
care of the civilian population of them
essentially utilizing human Shields to
try to fire Rockets free from
Attack essentially yes as I'm just
saying that essentially in terms of how
international law defines it not how
amesty International defines it but Amy
International describes times of human
shielding but they don't actually apply
the correct International legal standard
know what's the correct AB you I
absolutely
absolutely wiip I'm just saying I'm just
saying believe it or not normal the
entire Geneva conventions is all on
Wikipedia it's a wonderful website but
I'm just saying I'm just saying that on
the Hamas side if there's an attempt to
induce this type of military activity
attempt to induce civilian harm that
it's not just enough to say say like
well here's a diary entry where a guy
talks about how tragic I the problem I
think the problem with with with your
statement is that if you go back and
listen to it the first part of it is War
as hell civilians die it's it's a fact
of life and and and you state that in a
very factual matter then when you start
talking about
Hamas all of a sudden you've discovered
morality and you've discovered
condemnation and you've discovered
intent M absolutely bodied him there
when it's Hamas the bad intent is
assumed Destiny has zero trouble calling
their actions war crimes when it's
Israel where is hell and the default
assumption is that they were trying to
achieve legitimate military objectives
and the civilians just got in the way
but double standards and Habra are not
the only way of denying Israel is
committing war crimes when left with no
other options one can simply deny basic
reality here is Benny Morris resorting
to this tactic when confronted with the
starvation of Palestinians as of
one quarter of the population of Gaza is
starving that means 500,000 children are
starving are on the verge of famine they
keep saying on the verge
of I have not seen one Palestinian die
of starvation in these last four months
not one on the verge they're on the
verge they have been documented cases I
haven't seen yesterday aler said six and
the day before that they said two so
those are the two the that number
probably dies in Israel of starvation
also I don't think there's famine in
Israel there isn't there isn't in the
Gaza Strip either it's something which
is produced for the West there are
infants dying due to a engineered lack
of access to food and nutrition I it's
engineered I think if the Kamas stopped
shooting perhaps unforunately
unfortunately as you said engineered I
think um amnesty and excuse me Human
Rights Watch called it using starvation
as a weapon that's called engineering
Benny Morris claimed there I have not
seen one Palestinian die of
starvation maybe you need to spend some
more time on Tik Tok where you might get
actually information versus whatever
propaganda networks you are currently
being fed from yes Palestinian children
and infants are dying of starvation yes
it is because of an intentional series
of Israeli policies in fact Oxfam as we
discussed before just released a new
report detailing the many methods that
Israel is using to intentionally starve
Palestinians that includes blocking Aid
entirely using an arbitrarily
bureaucratic and restrictive process to
block that Aid indiscriminantly
targeting civilians including Aid
workers rendering distribution
impossible in the face of these
undeniable facts which are too awful to
defend without resorting to outright
Nazi rhetoric the only option left is
just to flat out deny reality there no
other choice if you're committed to
painting Israel as a moral actor for his
part Destiny was inclined to pull from
the debate bro playbook in order to
distract an attempt to put norm and M
both on the defensive one of these
tactics was on display as a debate
participants argued over whether or not
Israel is in fact committing genocide
now in this section Destiny attempted to
throw up a smoke screen of complexity to
number one try to make it appear as if
Norm's correct interpretation of the icj
finding was wrong thereby dodging the
actual implication of that International
Court's ruling that the South African
case alleging genocide was in fact
plausible and two in order to make the
question of genocide seem so complex and
Technical that no lay person could
possibly understand it and you're a fool
to even try you also get to enjoy some
of Norm's unbridled contempt for destiny
in this exchange take a look to even
make it to plausible that is not true
that is not what plaus it is absolutely
not Mr barelli please don't teach me
about the English langu which so the
Declaration judge I
saidil qualifying the court is not asked
at this present phase of the proceedings
to determine whether South Africa's
allegations of genocide are well founded
they're not well founded they're not
even well founded the you said that
plausible was a high standard is
absolutely not it is a misrepresentation
of the strength of the case against
Israel just like the majority of the
quotes they have in this case are and
also you said it was an extremely well
founded case they spend like four of all
of the quotations some even pulled from
the Goldstone report they try to uh that
actually deal with the intent part which
is by the way I think you guys I don't
know if you use the phrase the doo
specialis that the intentional part of
genocide know the the I think it's I
think it's called Doo specialis it is
the most important part of genocide
which is proving the special it is a
highly special intent to commit genocide
it's possible that Israel that's men's
no Pro the men's yes I understand the
state of mind but in for genocide there
is it's called specialis it's a highly
special intent did you read the case oh
it's a highly special intent dois
specialis if you don't know this obscure
legal term then apparently you can't
possibly understand the concept of
genocide it's a neat way for Destiny to
dismiss the targeting of civilians the
collective punishment the direct quotes
of high level Israeli officials
admitting their genocidal intent because
only Destiny at the table possesses this
super special knowledge and so only he
is qualified to judge whether Israel has
in fact met the bar of this highly
special intent now as our friend jagor
details on uh Twitter there is nothing
magical about the Latin legal term dois
specialis it just means specific intent
in other words you can't accidentally do
a genocide you got to have specific
intent something that Norm and W clearly
demonstrate in their comments that they
fully understand furthermore there is
actually debate for what it's worth in
the international law Community about
how such intent can be established since
usually usually governments do not go
around declaring they are doing a job
genocide many scholars argue that as a
result circumstantial evidence could
suffice for proving this specific intent
to genocide or do specialist if we're
being fancy in the case of Israel
however we don't really have this
problem since everyone from BB to
president Herzog to the defense minister
to a wide variety of War cabinet
ministers and ruling party members have
been happy to give quotes elucidating
their genocidal intent as South Africa
accurately detailed in their icj filing
this assertion of complexity is a go-to
tactic for Israel Defenders and it's
quite effective frankly many a liberal
concerned about the humanitarian horror
unfolding before their eyes can be shut
down in an instant by a simple assertion
that the Situation's really complex and
therefore outside of the understanding
of those without encyclopedic knowledge
of every twist and turn in the
historical record now ironically Norm
Moen and Benny actually have that
encyclopedic expert knowledge of the
conflict which Destiny is himself
completely lacking but the tactic is
such a go-to that Destiny attempts it
anywhere even when confronted with
actual legit experts and of course the
history the technical legal minutia all
these things are of course complex but
the basics are not difficult to
understand Palestinians were ethnically
cleansed from their land they live under
occupation and blockade both of which
are illegal they are currently being
slaughtered and starved on mass you
don't need to know what Theodore Herzel
wrote in his diary in 1896 in order to
understand these things although nor M
and Benny actually do know such specific
details relatedly I don't think it's
inappropriate for non-experts like
Destiny or myself for that matter to
have opinions and to voice them and to
defend them and to debate them even with
experts I might just recommend a little
bit of humility awareness of the bounds
of your technical knowledge as compared
to legit historians who have spent their
entire adult lives studying all of the
details now there is one final tactic
consistently deployed by Destiny and
Benny in this debate which is worth
Illuminating and that is the
inconsistent appeal to international law
now when it suits israelies such as when
discussing the original un partition
plan then international law is
everything it's binding when it doesn't
suit them such as when being held
accountable for illegal settlements and
war crimes it's irrelevant it's useless
who cares this selective appeal to
international law came out several times
throughout the debate perhaps most
notably in an exchange between norm and
Benny in which Norm de is the illegal
blockade of Gaza and Benny replies that
the Judgment of these International
bodies is irrelevant no one cares and
that we should quote forget the law take
a lesson they were shooting rockets at
Israel for for 20 years why is that
illegal to blockade
Gaza why why is it illegal I'll tell you
why you don't rocket your neighbor you
rocket your neighbor expect consequences
I'll tell you why expect consequences
but that works both way I know iess
Professor both ways I'll tell you why
because every human rights humanitarian
and un organization in the world has
said said that the nobody cares is a
form of collective punishment illegal
under International laal the word you
think you think a blockade you don't
understand the way the world works these
things are irrelevant and you think
confining because that's the blockade
yes you don't confing million children
combining that's the choice combining a
million children in what the economist
called a human rubbish sheep The
Economist supported Israel in this war
and continues to support Israel but um
International Committee of Red Cross
called a sinking ship with the UN High
Commissioner for human rights called a
toxic slum you think it is a slum of
course you think but it's cused under
international law you think it's
legitimate hey I know you want to forget
the law thing thatal what every Israeli
fears the most what the law as as siy ly
said I studied international law I
oppose international law of course you
don't want to hear about the law that's
got nothing to do anything okay so
here's a thing yeah then don't complain
about October 7th if you don't want you
hear me if you want to say forget about
the law all I said was they like barbar
there is no International humanitarian
law There's no distinction between
civilians and combatants should be and
so now you're doing what Meen said
you're becoming very selective about the
law so Norm refers there to what Moen
had said previously about the selective
appeal to international law and in fact
Moen did sum up this point quite
brilliantly and succinctly if you want
to um dismiss international law that's
fine but then you have to do it
consistently you can't um set standards
for the
Palestinians um but reject uh applying
those standards to Israel um if we're
going to have the law of the Jungle then
we can all be beasts and not only some
of us and I think so it's either that or
you have certain agreed uh standards
that that are intended to regulate our
conduct all of our conduct not just some
of us so does international law matter
or do we all live by the law of the
Jungle might Mak us right it's a good
place to wrap up because that's really
the core question being tested right now
in the Gaza Strip can any of the
international rules that were set after
the horrors of World War II withstand
the genocide being committed in front of
our eyes with the direct Aid of our
country the world's quote unquote
superpower will distinctions between
civilians and in combatants or
prohibitions on war crimes or genocide
will any of that survive this moment or
will we drop even the pretense of
pretending to care about these Concepts
and leave it as Moen says to the law of
the Jungle where we can all be Beast
because even the propaganda smokescreen
carefully erected over decades cannot
block the world from seeing the Echoes
of those World War II atrocities you
cannot see the images of the wasted
starved bodies of Palestinian children
without thinking about the Holocaust you
can't witness the utter destruction of
Gaza and not think of dresin or even
hoshima you cannot hear the Casual
public dehumanization of human beings as
animals and Vermin and not think of Nazi
ideology the wall of hasbara has
crumbled and we are all left to wrestle
with the grave crimes that our leaders
are perfectly willing to commit
so Sager even though hey guys if you
want to see what I had to say to
Crystal's monologue not just this one
all of them going back to the very
beginning become a premium subscriber
today breakingpoints
tocom
Ver Más Videos Relacionados
Tensions Run High at Columbia University
I Investigated the Palestine Protests in NYC
Jeffrey Sachs: The US will be diplomatically isolated for Palestine-Israel conflict but it deserves
السيسي يرفض الرد على اتصالات نتنياهو! والمخابرات ترسل أقوى تحذير لإسرائيل منذ بدء الحرب سنرد بكل قوة
Behind Israel’s West Bank Escalation
為何李強的角色被頻繁被取代?習近平回應方式出人意料;運動已走火入魔:不會流行歌曲就會被當作特務遭舉報;保命要緊,援助巴鐵的工作得盡快辭。
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)