Does Israel Have the Right to Self-Defense in Gaza? International Law Professor Michel Paradis
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 авг 2024
- Commentators from Francesca Albanese to Aaron Mate have made the claim that as an "occupier," Israel has no right to self-defense in Gaza. Columbia Professor Michel Paradis generally disagrees.
Check out Michel's books:
Last Mission to Tokyo: The Extraordinary Story of the Doolittle Raiders and Their Final Fight for Justice - www.amazon.com...
The Light of Battle: Eisenhower, Normandy, and the Birth of the American Superpower - www.amazon.com...
Noam Dworman, with all due respect, I’m at 25:00 and your guest hasn’t addressed the actual claim, which was that “you cannot defend against the territory you occupy”.
So he never gave an example of a war with an occupied territory.
So then when you press him, he questions if Gaza is occupied or not.
Since Israel maintains control of Gaza, it’s an occupied territory.
So then, tell me if it is occupied what’s the law?
Seems like Mate and The UN special Rapporteur are “correct”.
Basically, the only way Israel can invoke self-defense is, if Gaza isn’t occupied.
Every international agency, & the US State Department considers it an occupied territory.
He stated very clearly that Gaza isn't occupied according to the International Law which he obviously knows better than Matte, and apparantelly better that the UN envoy
@@jennybravo7019 everyone considers Gaza an occupied territory. Every international human rights and international court, and US government.
Gaza is Israeli territory in two ways. One is the Uti Possidetis Juris (Israel inherited its borders form the British Mandate borders as they were midnight May 14 1948.) the other is by the guest's claim that Gaza was soverign Egytia territory which could only be had by Uti Possibedit Facto (A country that takes land by war becomes the soverign.) Calling Gaza before 1967 Egyptian sovereignty, is to claim that once Israel took it (actually reclaimed it) it becomes Israeli territory. Either way, Gaza is not occupied.
the only way Gaza is not occupied is if you change international law. For example in 1948 it was Israeli territory but occupied by Egypt. After the Six Day war, Israel reclaimed Gaza. After the peace treaty of Egypt, the border has been set between Israel and Egypt, It is not occupied territory. If the UN votes that Israel is a racist state of purple headed cockatoos, that is not international law, it is the current political nonsense espoused by a political organization. For example the partition plan of 1947, was illegal as it abrogated UN Charter article 22. However it was a non-binding proposal voted by the general assembly. BTW if the land is occupied, from whom? There was never a Palestine. The UN cannot create a state ex nihilo. @@bronzee548
@@1czechit1 Gaza was never "Israeli" or Egyptian territory, you are just mindlessly parroting the words of Jewish supremacists and nationalists like Kontorovich who are considered fringe. The land is occupied from the Palestinian people. "Israel" occupies the West Bank and the waters and airspace of Gaza. It occupies Palestine.
Save your little empathy for yourself when talking about kids dying in Gaza when you dont want ceasefire. You are sad that kids are dying in Gaza but not sad enough to stop their death.
Israel was attacked since 2001 by Gazans in all that time you never called for a cease fire. So spare us your Hamas support.
The idea that Egypt can be spoken about like an independent entity in this discussion is one of the most frustrating and ridiculous claims of the side of the argument. Noam I respect your scholarship a lot in general, but please have the integrity To acknowledge the Egyptian policy towards Gazza and foreign policy in general is completely at the behest of the United States. That the Democratically elected government was overthrown by the United States precisely in order to wrestle back that control. and if you don’t acknowledge at least go back and read the history, come up with a compelling argument to the contrary because this discussion the blockade can go no further until there is consensus on this issue
From what I gather from an Egyptian friend of mine, the Muslimbrotherhood itself wasn’t popular with large parts of the population after they came in to power, because as much as they hated the dictatorship they preferred it above the theocracy. Muslimbrotherhood was democratically elected but there also wasn’t much to chose because there weren’t many parties to compete. The liberal people were being cracked down under Mubarak and Muslimbrotherhood was allowed to run free, so he could claim that he was the best option against theocracy. The Egyptian government that is now in place claims Hamas was freeing Muslimbrotherhood people who were in jail . Wether that is true or not I do not know, but it’s more complicated than you say. Furthermore. Biden and Israel would like that Egyptians would take in people from Gaza, but Egypt doesn’t want it. So your argument is faulty there. This plan is Ethnic cleansing and is quite rightly frowned upon. I am against the bombing because the civilian toll now is too high and furthermore as Ben Schlomo Ami said, this war doesn’t have an endgoal. Hamas isn’t going away and if it does it will be replaced by an equally radical group. There is no strategy for instance to let Abbas take over Gaza, and they don’t want to occupy it. So all this destruction, even though Hamas is also to blame, seems to be for nothing. Maybe Noam could argue against these points, but I’m not convinced he can.
Sisi isn't a theocrat when he disseminates state approved religious opinions through his sultan scholars?
@@supershmobo I only know that according to my friend that after Mubarak the society became much stricter religiously speaking. I don’t know enough about Sisi, and for the record this is no defense for them. The theory that Sisi now does what Israel wants is wrong, however, because they don’t want to take Gaza’s people in.
@@supershmobo I’m not sure what your point is please expand?
@@edoblaauw4561I think that narrative that you have painted is deeply flawed that they’re were a minority of liberal middle class people who supported the overthrow of the Muslim brotherhood doesn’t mean that group wanted it to be replaced with a repressive illiberal dictatorship that cuts down on liberty’s far more than morsi. Neither does it account for the massive about money and support the us gives to Egypt for the precise purpose of keeping that government in power. As for the Gaza situation tho it might be argued that the us and Isreal would like Egypt to take in the gazans now in this war. (Although I would question that) but what can not be argued is that the us and Isreal absolutely want Egypt to continue the blockade and in fact I believe it was morsis opening of the blockade at one point that spurred on the coup
As for whether Gaza is in fact occupied. Well, yes, if you can argue it isn't then that would mean potentially or in theory, you have the right to defend yourself against other entities that are foreign and pose an existential threat to your political independence or territorial integrity or indeed to the security of your citizens.
But the jurisprudence is very clear on this matter as well. If you control the borders, the airspace, the territorial waters and even the electromagnetic spectrum of a territory, as Israel does, you are a de facto occupier. Any other interpretation is transparently disingenuous.
This is frustrating, the last couple of interviews have been too surface level - I was on a journey with norm i was learning things, now it just seems parrot parade 🤦🏽♀️ Please get illan pappe- he is an israeli historian & might help us get a better picture between your views & maybe add some context.
28:50 with that logic germany fought a defensive war against the brittish since they invaded poland not france and uk who declarded war on germany not other way around so thats why the german occupation of france was justified if we use that logic
Great reply, these Netanyahu cheerleaders have to jump through outrageous hoops and still it is broken logic.
god point.
Disappointing interview. Very surface level and shallow unfortunately. You didn't learn anything my Finkelstein.
The traumatise jew who will admit that if peace came tomorrow he'd be out of a job 😂.
Like alot of people who live to perpetuating war Palestinians have continually made the most of bad choices sadly based of bad information by bad leadership
I am not aware that fishermen from Gaza were stopped by the egyptians navy. Or we did not hear the Egyptians stopped Turkish ships to deliver supplies to Gaza. But the Israeli stopped any maritime link.
Egypt stopped shipping into Gaza and they also stopped (violently) western protestors trying to go into Gaza from Egypt
That's because Hamas started firing thousands of rockets , brought in by tunnels and sea.
It's why the wall was built as well . There were no border walls or check points in the 80's , no separate entrances no military in Jerusalem.
This has all developed since 1990 and PLO non stop attacks.
Athough your guest is correct, that state practise is crucial for understanding how we interpret, not just customary law, but of course treaty law, he's wrong when he argues there is no judicial organ that has the reach with authority or regularity to interpret international law. Particularly pertinent to this case, in fact, the International Court of Justice ruled on the building of the separation wall in the West Bank that Israel did not have the right to self-defense because it was an occupying force.
Moreover, the third source of international law, aside from customary law and treaty law is the pronouncements of authoritative judicial and legal bodies. That not only includes the international Court of Justice, not only includes the judgements of treaty bodies, but also other UN organs such as the UN General Assembly.
The latter in fact has passed many resolutions affirming the rights of people not only to self-determination but also the right to resist illegal occupation. It has never once passed a resolution affirming the right of an illegal occupier to defend itself against a resistance.
It is a truism that with matters of law invariably you can find a lawyer to take any position. But I think despite this, the matter is quite clear on whether illegal occupiers have the right to defend themselves against resistors of that occupation.
Are you guy's literally trying to excuse/justify what Occupiers can do, and that Occupiers have "Legal" International Rights to Occupy other State's and/or Sovereign Entities?
...what the H3LL is wrong with these 2 guys?
Something is wrong with you if you can't handle an objective and knowledgeable opinion of someone who is an expert in the field. Do you specialize in international law? If not, may be you just listen and learn
Sanitizing the debate for sake of argument. Gaza is part of the Palestinian territory that has been fractured,, annexed and "occupied" historically and presently. Apparently indigenous sovereignty wasn't included in this interpretation. I find it devoid of honest reflection considering countervailing omissions.
When leadership refused land starting in 1920 when Grand Mufti encouraged uprisings , the land offer on the table was 20 % for a Jewish State ! It was swamp and desert .
Each and every land offer has been refused . Life goes on and Arab Palestinian leaders frankly have failed Palestinians repeatedly. But they have become billionaires and are good at running off to safe countries.
There is a lot of problems for this discussion. For the most part it is focusing an answer to Francesca Albanese based on an clip that lasts maybe a minute when she was speaking for about an hour an a half. In this hour she clearly states that israel has the right of self defense in it's territory. Michel Paradis said the exact same thing and the key thing is "it's territory" Israel has internationally recognized borders to which it refuses to go back to. Second Michel Paradis said about the right of self defense that it is invoked by the article 5 of NATO and the first time it was used against a non-state entity (implying it was a right application of law). Well this is as i am sure Prof. Paradis knows and deeply contested matter. Not everyone believes that it was a right application for the right of self defense. As Albanese said " a terrorist group emanating from Belgium attacked France. France did not bomb Brussels though" maybe it should as the USA held all the Afghans accountable for an armed group that clearly did not represent them, may france should carpet bomb Belgium.
Further Noam, called her a hack and an anti-semite because she said that the occupation must end, because for his sick logic if the occupation stops all the jews die, which is a fucking absurd thing to say. Of course denying to see all the context that compells the palestianians to armed resistance and forgetting that the PLO governes the West Bank which is under occupation, which means ISRAEL DOES NOT WANT THE WAR TO END REGARDLESS OF HAMAS. It is so obvious to everyone except him.
I encourage all the people here to go and watch the full video of the special rapporteur and see for their own if she spoke in an anti-semite manner.
I have a lot of problems with international law and the main thing is that it is not well defined as Prof. Paradis said and this is in order for the strong states to manipulate it and justify their imperialist policies with a vale of legality. However Fransisca Albanese said that there is juriprudence about the matter of bombing in the occupied territories. So there is concrete decision of the ICJ on the matter. Sadly the US always veto the resolution of the UN security council which is appalling.
Well this is my rant. It was a good discussion but it was as partial as any of the discussions in the mainstram media.
I have a question that i can't find a clear answer for . Israel is going after Hamas , but if Israel is targeting innocent civilians don't those civilians have a right to defend themselves? I mean does the UN expect me to look at an invading army and say " INTERNATIONAL LAW SAYS I HAVE NO RIGHT TO DEFENSE SO TAKE MY WAR AGE CHILDREN or JUST IMPRISON MY DAUGHTERS " ? The Palestinian civilians must have rights to defend themselves, like I'd expect Israeli citizens must also have , to fight off a force coming to deprive me of my rights of sovereignty and freedom .
Israel don't target civilians. Israel has nothing to gain and much to loose by targeting civilians. Hamas, on the other hand is basing its whole strategy on deaths of as many Palestinian civilians as possible. Only completely blind and deaf people can not see this obvious truth
No the Palestinians have a right to self defense. How would Israel have a right to self defense in Gaza
Because Hamas who controls Gaza since 2005 and attacked Israel again and again and again and again and again on Oct 7
@@johnfelman5117This year alone Israel has killed 600 people in Gaza, do the Palestinians have a right to self defense?
@@johnfelman5117 Israel is an occupation power the siege is a war tactic the apartheid is a war tactic the settlements in the west bank is war tactic the direct occupation in the west bank is a war tactic
Its the facsit ethno religious apartheid state who attacks Palestinians again and again and again
It’s called double speak.
I think treating Palestinians as children with no moral agency and indulging them in delusions of Israel’s downfall are profoundly anti-Palestinian.
This host of this show is so clueless…
Some honesty and telling the audience the truth that you are a Jew and you are supporting Israel no matter what would be the least that you as a host could do. Such intellectual dishonesty…
He is a Jew and he doesn't hide it. What's wrong with you?
Noam, you display that same level of smuggness when talking about Israel's right to "defend" itself. You "struggle" with the deaths of thousands of children, but want nothing done to stop it.
He is a hypocrite who can’t help but expose himself.
The Js aren't known for honesty
Oh, great question. Did the Nazis have the right to self defence in the Jewish concentrations camps? 🤔🤔🧐🤨
? WTF
@@bleep957 in Warsaw ghetto, the Jewish resistance fought against the Nazi guards. They failed, but they tried to overpower the Nazis, violently.
Saying that Israel had the right to self defence is like saying the Nazis had a right to self defence because the Jews that they imprisoned were violent against them.
In 1939, the Jews in concentration camps had a right to violently resist the Nazis. Just as Palestinians now have a right to violently resist Israel. Neither Nazis or Israel have a right to self defence against the people who they oppress.
I was starting to watch your videos, realizing you’re pro Israel but wanting to hear the other side, feeling the need to lean in, in the midst of the pain. I was hoping you were level headed or trying to be, but this??? Not all occupation is the same ??? Basically saying that some people deserve or even need to be occupied??? I’ll give you a piece of information that gutted me for some reason, all newborns in Gaza MUST be registered in Israel, Gaza is not occupied?? Israel is bombing people it has in its own population registry.
This was so disheartening, and you are woefully ill informed
Gaza was not occupied , read your history. No country has to alow an open border or people to be able to cross in to another country for work ect .
Gazan and West Bank Arabs made life more difficult by setting car bombs , teenage suicide bombers and contact rockets fire .
Border wall
Check points
Iron Dome
Sea Blocades .
It's nothing any other country wouldn't do . This pathological dissection is because this is a religious ideological war for Jerusalem.
Colonised by Islamic Ottoman Empire .
Hamas a really very dumb because all they have achieved is an ultra Orthodox far right call for the building of a new temple 😂.
Muslims worst nightmare .
But honestly any Muslims that pray with their back to a mosque has definitely pulled a fast one .
It’s not “self-defense.”
Bla bla bla bla bla....hope not all the lawyers are like you
Jailers don't occupy the jail.....got it...
You mean Hamas , the very greedy money making billionsares living in absolute luxury while Palestinians get bombed .
Even the soldiers have hiding places
Also, what the host seems to conveniently overlook is the fact that Gaza was an illegal annexation of territory directly as a result of a war in 1967. Which is to say that it is analogous to any conflict which results in the movement of international borders.
By definition, with very few exceptions, such as the allied occupation of Germany immediately after World War II, if you are an occupier, you have a ilegally annexed territory due to the illegal use of force.
You can argue that 1967 was a war of defence, although the literature when and available evidence points to the Israeli authorities cynically using the construction of a threat as a pretext to launch a war, but regardless, even in wars of self-defense, annexation of territory is strictly prohibited by the United Nations charter.
To be clear, it doesn't matter if your war is in self-defense that does not give you the right to annexe territory and change international borders. Why is this not clear??
When you start to talk about resistance groups in those legally occupied territories expressing desires to annihilate the occupier, you are obfuscating these legal realities.
So to use your analogy of World War II and French resistance against the Nazis, Do you think if the French resistance or parts of it expressed a ideological commitment to wipe off the face of the earth Nazi Germany that would annul their rights to resist their occupiers? By extension would that legitimise Nazi Germany's right to self-defense?
That is self-evidently an absurd proposition.
I think what Albanese and Mate are basing their argument on is the ICJ opinion on the wall "Article 51 of the Charter, the Court notes, recognizes the existence of an inherent right of
self-defence in the case of armed attack by one State against another State. However, Israel does
not claim that the attacks against it are imputable to a foreign State. The Court also notes that
Israel exercises control in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and that, as Israel itself states, the
threat which it regards as justifying the construction of the wall originates within, and not outside,
that territory. The situation is thus different from that contemplated by Security Council
resolutions 1368 (2001) and 1373 (2001), and therefore Israel could not in any event invoke those
resolutions in support of its claim to be exercising a right of self-defence. Consequently, the Court
concludes that Article 51 of the Charter has no relevance in this case.
The Court considers further whether Israel could rely on a state of necessity which would
preclude the wrongfulness of the construction of the wall..." So it would be good to have say Dershowitz address that directly.
Why is Gaza treated completely removed from the rest of the Palestinian people. Even if Gaza was not occupied, the Palestinian people in the West Bank are, and they are harmed daily. Surely Gazans have a right to defend their own people? Even if Gaza became independent tomorrow. They would fight, because of the millions in the West Bank that are murdered and occupied every day?
It's the UN have refused to recognise Palestinian State . That's because Palestinian leadership are fighting each other
Million of people in the West Bank ? A whole modern city funded by Palistinian American citizens has been largely left uninhabited due to PA corruption and failure to hold elections. Palestinians have left and now just have holiday homes in the West Bank
I beg your pardon!I just want to elaborate,but what transpares from this discussion is that you have already reached a conclusion and forcing the law to serve yoyr thesis
A problem involving 2 million people has been swept under the rug for decades, with the Israel enjoying immense control not to mention the ever increasing settlements and land theft over the years. And now, should the Palestinians and the UN be expected to show compassion?41:50
No it hasn't it major part of every UN meeting. Just because you may have just woken up to it doesn't mean no one is doing any work on it .
The Palestinian leadership has kept the fighting going for 100 years !
Well you are right I never knew anything about the conflict mostly cause I’m from the other side of the world but better late than never. Now I know n see it all
Regarding the alleged sabotage by the leadership: this theory has been debunked by several historians and even Netanyahu himself said he did it all to prevent a two state or any kind of resolutions. He even prppped up Hamas
How do you explain that almost every single journalist in Gaza has been annihilated (Even prior to Oct. 7th, but especially after Oct. 7th)? And how does this even fit into self-defense? Forget about the citizens, because according to your guest "we simply don't know enough about that". How do you explain the flotilla incident? You could talk your way into saying everything Israel has done has been self-defense, but then you would have to talk about whether or not the concept of a war crime is even a possibility within an act of self-defense. This whole thing is like a Trump Tax evasion trial. Just like semantically snake ones way out of everything. I guess that is how things work. That is too bad. Look up "Life and Death in Gaza | The Killing Zone (2003)". Maybe if you see some dead white people the law expertise will shift a little bit.
You're arguing a straw man: what that woman an Mate are saying is that as long as the occupation is ongoing, Israel can not claim self defense. If the occupation would stop and there were still rockets coming out of Gaza then of course Israel can act on self defense.
How can you call for her firing without any chance of listening to her point of view? On the basis of one opinion? You call her an antisemitic? Is that you do not like Italians by any chance ? (Just to apply back to you the same approach you had for her). Aren't you beng a bit too emotional? Pleade don't be anti-Italian.
She has shown her anti-Israel bias on numerous occasions:
1. in 2021, she compared the Nakba to the Holocaust
2. Participated in events hosted by organisations promoting BDS
3. Received funding from pro-palestinian lobby group which goes against the UN code of conduct
4. Admitted in 2021, that her deeply held views for Palestine may compromise her ability to be objective.
@@kedrick93 a reason more to invite her to the show and confront her with these statements. We are hearing so many propaganda these days only because people do not agree with Israel. With due respect it is important to be factual and last events are shwoing pro Israel parrot the propaganda talking points of the israel government. As pro israel sources (not alone in this) have been caught lying, your talking points may be just another propoganada lie as well. And you may unintentionally report something that is not true or it least manipulated.
@@kedrick93 I grew up in Italy. People like her and I grew up studying Primo Levi, we went to the camps with the survivors, we grew up in a culture that is not antisemitic. Drastic judgments like these have to be proven giving the accused the ability to debate. I k ow she is very accessible. She just went on the a channel of an italian former politician, now working as a journalist. If touch base with her she will certaInly come and talk to the show.
The US war against Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq, according to this guys, was an "act of self defense", HAHAHAHAHA , and his justification is that NATO did it, so of course it is OK, HAHAHAHAHAH. When someone is subject to aggression then they have right to self defense? you mean like Gaza responding to the aggression of being occupied for over 50 years? Noam is learning so much, just look at him nodding, all sounds so clear to him
Watching this is so frustrating, that declaration/agreement, whatever you want to call it, was made before the creation of israel... where was it created from?? On who's land?
Secondly but also continuation, "Not all occupations are the same, occupying a place that was taken by a clear war and annexation is different than occupying a place that was taken when the occupying power was attacked" is exactly the point that Albanese & Mate are talking about, Gaza was annexed into Israel, and is occupied, the 16 year blockade, the lack of human rights before this current war, it doesn't justify atrocities, but it justifies Palestinian's right for self defense
Thank God I'm not Zionist ... This is tiring ... I'm ashamed that my government still supports Zionism
Holy grasping at straws!
What we should consider is universal law, and based on that, we are all guilty of breaking it.
Noam, Jordan and Egypt had a mutual defense agreement in force when the outbreak of hostilities between Israel and Egypt occured. If Israel, in the full knowledge that there was such an agreement, illegally attacked Egypt anyway, then to describe Jordan's attack on Israel as illegal is simply false, just like if Russia attacked Britain then in response we attacked Russia, nobody would describe that as illegal or unjustified. The whole quesion boils down to whether the Israeli attack on Egypt was preemptive or not.
Especially when they had just mentioned the NATO agreement of states declaring war when other NATO members are attacked. Noam is clearly very intelligent and fair minded but this just shows obvious blind spots in his thinking. He mentioned Egypt closing the Straits of Tiran. If that's a moral justification then what is Gaza to do with the blockade?
Israel is doing too much
Hey Michel, I loved you in succession! Congrats on the ceo gig! ✌️
Thank you for doing this. Ive reqd the Geneva Convention and trying to explain how and what it means and WHY is falling flat, it seems. I hope I learn how to express what I mean to convey better... and /or correct my stance where necessary through this interview.
He expanded the vietnam war . What are you talking about?
Fun interview. Two problems. 1967 war has to be seen in light of separation of forces of the 1956 war (which partly broke out due to terrorist attacks from from Gaza) and second Gaza was Israeli territory by the Uti Possidetis Juris principle. I am sorry that was not covered in the discussion. Claim that an occupied people can fight the occupation is hilarious considering that in such thinking abrogates the very Fourth Geneva Convention the supporters of "Palestinians" claim Israel should abide by.
This guest is Bert kreisher
No.
This hasn’t aged well.
Yes Noam, applying the social and behavioral sciences & likely most sciences result in left wing political positions and greater democracy, forward moving civilizations.
Illan Pape would be an interesting guest like another commenter mentioned. Maybe Gideon Levy. That could be an interesting discussion.
Or you could also bring on the "Gringo Mandingo" Michael Rappaport to expound on his recent crusade to defend Israel from much of its recent international scrutiny. Maybe him and Alan Dershowitz together. That'd be fun Noam. 🙂
Yes, I'd love to see there Gidon Levi. This would be interesting.
i wish i can see debate with norman finkelstein
Israel not only has the right to defend itself, it has a responsibility to defend its people. The question is, why did they fail to do that so badly on October 7th? How is the Defense minister still in a job?
No they do not. They are occupiers. Occupiers never have the right to defend themselves in occupied land.
Almost every country occupies land that was not always theirs. Doesn’t justify the attempt to push the Palestinians out.
What exactly did they occupy?
Who is pushing Palestinians out?
@@MrSportz1234 the Palestinian land. That's what they occupied.
the position of any analyst should take a stance of non bias and a factual data presentation, and your guest having published a book and did not come across documents proving the ancestry of Palestinians to their land is laughable. If he would like to know more and be more informed please let that be known.
I must give credit to Noam for airing these rambunctious debates in which not too many people seem to be convinced of his position. (I'm not even sure he is convinced either.) But no friend, relative or any acquaintance of mine agrees to discuss even one of his topics with me. So, even if these videos are hard to follow, they are mesmerizing for the tenacity Noam shows to keep his beliefs intact. Four of my friends are American Jewish ex-belly dancers from the era of Manny's Cafe Feenjon where MidEast "peace" broke out every night in song and dance. Even they have refused to "discuss politics." For anyone who grew up in that delusional happy atmosphere, genocide must be impossible to reconcile.
He was raised in a cult.
He's a J. He doesn't deserve any credit
@@albertomartinez714 Thanks for that note, S.
Hes too old to learn anything new
It will be a good debate at the ICC... the big issue is proportionality which is loosly defined in the law. hopefully ICC lays it out more clearly with Israel.
Terrible takes, no counter points given
Michel Paradis is just about as Jewish as Andrew Ross Sorkin, and his nose even got bigger by the end of the video when he said he isn't Jewish. lol.
First comment! Happy Hanukkah and good shabbos from another atheist Jew!
Atheist? Hahahahaha, cultists.
Inb4 the tankie brigade
Gaza was not occupied as the IDF left in 2005
Israel has a right and obligation to defend itself
So you mean if the jailer leaves the cell to go guard it from the outside... This means the prisoner is now free ???
@@hibamb8121 OH BABY GO ASK EGYPT TOO. IF GAZA WAS AN ACTUAL OFFICIAL STATE AS SUPPOSED TO ESSENTIALLY A DE FACTO STATE AND IT STARTED SENDING ROCKETS DAILY AND WEEKLY INTO ISRAEL OR ANY STATE THEN ANY NATION WOULD TIGHTEN ITS BORDERS
ALMOST ALL NATION STATES SAFEGUARD THEIIR BORDERS ESPECIALLY WITH HOSTILE ACTORS ( LIKE ISIS OR HAMAS) AND/ OR HOSTILE STATES WITH TERRORISTS RUNNING IT
@@hibamb8121 HAMAS STOLE BILLIONS AND INSTEAD OF BUILDING A BETTER GAZA DEFACTO CONTROLLED STATE FOR ITS PEOPLE THEY BUILT IT INTO A TERRORIST STATE TO FIRE ROCKETS INTO ISRAEL DAILY
EGYPT SHUTS ITS BORDERS JUST LIKE ISRAEL- WHY ?????