um welcome everyone uh welcome everyone in the US Israel Palestine and other places uh in the world the name and the topic of today's webinar is the Israel Kamas war and international law uh this is the latest in the series of webinars that partners for Progressive Israel produces called conversations with Israel and Palestine my name is Ron skolik I organize uh this series for partners for Progressive Israel uh I'm just going to take a moment before handing things over to today's uh panel to let you know that partners for Progressive Israel is an American not for propit it is dedicated to the achievement of a durable and just peace between Israel and its neighbors and that includes of course an end to Israel's occupation Partners support Israelis working to ensure social justice civil rights Jewish Arab partnership sh and equality for all of Israel's inhabitants the organization seeks to deepen Americans understanding of Israel's and palestine's complexities so they can better advocate for a progressive future for all inhabitants of the region Partners Progressive Israel is glad to be bringing this uh webinar to all of you for free if you enjoy it and want more programming like it please visit Progressive israel.org and make whatever contrib contribution you feel appropriate um before introducing today's panel uh a quick note about upcoming programming that you might find of interest on Sunday December 3D uh the last two sessions of the 2023 winter component of the Israel Palestine Symposium that Partners produces every year will take place this is a virtual discussion and the two sessions will deal with a shared Society within the green line uh and we'll focus on issues of Economic and political disparity between Jewish and Arab citizens of Israel uh the Arab lives matter movement and other questions that's on Sunday December 3rd uh one quick note um the chat is open for conversation amongst audience members uh the chat however is not where you should be posing questions as's a Q&A button please use that um as the panel won't be monitoring uh the chat for your questions so questions in the Q&A okay let me now uh introduce uh our pan in brief and uh hand things over to them which is what you're waiting for um Professor Michael waler is Professor ameritus of social science at The Institute for advanced study in Princeton New Jersey as a professor author editor and lecturer waler has addressed a wide variety of topics in political Theory and moral philosophy and those include just and unjust War uh nationalism ethnicity political obligation uh his books include just and unjust Wars spheres of Justice uh thick and thin moral argument at home and abroad and many more uh and his books and essays have played a part in the Revival of practical issue focused ethics and in the development of a pluralist approach to political and moral life uh Walser served for more than three decades as co-editor of descent magazine he's currently working on the fourth volume of the Jewish political tradition which is a comprehensive collabor collaborative project focused on the history of Jewish political thought and his book uh a foreign policy for the left was published in 2018 uh Mikel sard uh is an Israeli human rights lawyer specializing in international human rights law and the laws of war with a special emphasis on the law of belligerent occupation he serves as legal adviser to several Israeli human rights and humanitarian organizations and peace groups and and those include yes de breaking the silence and peace now Shalom makab uh he also represents Palestinian communities and Israeli and Palestinian activists and advises international human rights and humanitarian NOS uh s also serves as a commissioner on the international Commission of jurists and it's a non-resident fellow at the nonprofit democracy for the Arab world now or the acronym Dawn uh sard has authored several books including the wall and the gate Israel Palestine on the legal battle for human rights uh he graduated from The Faculty of law at hebra University and received his llm and international human rights law from University College of London uh our moderator today is Emily schaer om man uh she is an Israeli American human rights attorney with more than 15 years experience representing Palestinian litigants before Israeli courts as well as International tribunals until 2017 she was of councel at the mik Spide Law Office where she served as legal director of yin's security forces accountability project uh representing victims of killing injury and other crimes committed by Israeli soldiers police and settlers alongside M Spar she successfully litigated challenges to the idea after use of white phosphorus and successive Gaza military campaigns and represented the village of bin in the West Bank in challenging wall in settlements in 2018 she founded a nonprofit law practice focused on corporate accountability for complicity in Palestinian human rights abuses uh schaer Omar man is an adun professor at American University and is regularly invited to lecture and comment on the application of international law to Israel's occupation with that I will hand things over to Emily shaon and our panel I'll rejoining at the end to say thank you uh I hope hope we find an enriching uh and educating webinar thank you thank you so much Ron and good morning or evening or afternoon uh to all of our uh audience members um and thank you to Partners for Progressive Israel for inviting me back to moderate another great conversation um with two esteemed uh colleagues I have to give full disclosure uh which is that this is well an a special great pleasure for me today because I'm with not only my former boss and a longtime Mentor a dear friend M spad uh but also um a professor whose work I have followed uh closely and uh whose perspective on moral and um political aspects of of the work that I do has really um helped to shape some of shape some of that work so thank you Professor welzer I it is not lost on me as I'm sure it's not lost on the rest of the audience that both of your names are Michael or Mikel um so I hope that it's okay if I um address questions to Michael W and Michael S um for for ease is that all right all right wonderful um so we have a lot to cover today so I want to dive straight in I'm sure that most of our audience members are glued to the news um and don't need uh a lot of background um but just to make sure we're all oriented um on what we're going to be discussing today um we are of course talking about uh the most recent hostilities which began on October 7th when Hamas um broke through the fence between the Gaza Strip and Israel proper um killing around 1,400 um Israeli most of whom were civilians um also um abducting and taking hostage uh upwards of 240 um Israelis and taking them back into Gaza um since then there have been regular mortars or Rockets fired into Israel um in fact just as a warning uh Our Guest Michael S um may need to abruptly uh leave and come back uh to this discussion because uh Rockets are still um Landing even where he is in t uh six and a half weeks into um the war and of course the northern border has also uh been active particularly with Hamas militants that are based in Lebanon um firing into Northern Israel in response Israel began a campaign um first of high numbers of air strikes um followed by um a an evacuation or forced evacuation of the north uh of Gaza of around a million people um among the 2.2 million gazans who live in the strip um and um and a and issued a Complete Siege on Gaza and you might recall uh defense minister Gant saying no food no water no electricity um no uh no fuel um and since then some humanitarian Aid has has come in um but the situation is um quite dire in terms of all of those uh needs um and the death toll is now upwards of 13 uh thousand where it's believed that around 8,000 of those are civilians and uh reports are that 5500 among those who have been killed are children um I am going to Le leave most of the international legal analysis and discussion uh for for um our our guests and and perhaps the three of us but I just want to give us a really basic orientation um so we can have uh this discussion and remind all of our audience um what we're talking about when we say international law in this in this context right today's question is what is international law have to say about all of what has happened over the past six and a half weeks and perhaps even before um and what we mean is is the laws of war um and those are um some of the oldest sets of uh of international law and international legal thinking um that exist and they even predate the codification at least of of human rights law um and there are both um Provisions obligations that um parties in power armies in power or sorry parties at war or armies at War have um duties that they have towards each other and towards civilians and also um powers that they have that they are able to execute when uh when in in war um and one of the most important rules is the principle of Distinction and that is the principle that um military targets are to be distinguished from civilians so um this means Fighters uh combatants um members of of armed groups and armies are to be our legitimate military targets whereas civilians are not to be targeted um and the same goes for for property right sometimes we call these objects military objects civilian objects and that's especially true when we're talking about schools and hospitals which have extra Protections in places of cultural significance this equation unfortunately never boils down to you only militants uh or combatants killed um and civilians and and their homes and um property preserved and they and the calculation often feels very cold and something that I I think it'll be interesting to talk about particularly uh with you and Michael W Professor um but the where where the morality comes in to this to this equation but the bottom line is that where there is a military necessity for uh conducting an attack or a military uh maneuver a calculation needs to be made about whether the loss of life that is predicted loss of civilian life or damage to civilian property that is predicted this is a you know an a an ex an a forward-looking analysis uh is proportionate to the military advantage to be achieved and U it's a complex analysis um but its ultimate goal is supposed to be to cause the least amount of harm to civilians while achieving the war goals um I want to move into the questions uh that I have for the two of you but laying out that background so that we have some of the terminology so first I'll turn to you Michael S um and I would like you to help us sort of diagnose some of the um any any major International law violations again we're looking at IHL laws of war International humanitarian law um that we have seen over the past month and a half and if I if I may I'd like to put the actions of Hamas and the IDF into four major categories for you so the first would be the killing and uh inhumane treatment of civilians this the second would be uh Abduction of civilians and holding hostage third destruction of property um including schools and hospitals as I mentioned um and four would be the siege of Gaza either all of it or part of it can you tell us what in these categories you see as violations um well thank you and um just to take one second to say thank you for U organizing this to uh partners for Progressive Israel it's really a pleasure to be here with professor walzer and with you Emily it's a um an old friend of mine um you know International laws of war are not primarily meant for lawyers they are primarily meant for soldiers for combatants for officers and that is why I tend to say when I am asked about violations of the laws of war from people who are you know you and I will call them laymen that are not lawyers or that intuition should play a very good role in understanding what's illegal and what's legal what's immoral and what's moral and I think when we look at what happened on October 7th I think all of us in our heart of hearts in our bellies we know that we are we were seeing crimes against humanity I'm not talking about the the legal classific a of that specific type of crimes crimes against humanity is a type of international crimes but I'm talking about a crime against anything that is human killing systematically civilians children babies women men Elder people who are defenseless and who are civilians is a crime and doing it on a systematic fashion as we know the Hamas uh militants have done is a crime and shooting rockets at civilian centers uh with an aim to cause as much damage as possible to civilians and CI civilian objects is a crime is a war crime and uh hiding and assimilating in civilian uh uh um among civilians and exposing them to the risks of War this is a violation a very clear and fundamental VI violation of the principle of Distinction the principle of Distinction has two sides one is that combatants are not allowed to point their guns to civilians of the enemy but the other is that they have to distinguish distinguish themselves from their own civilians so as not to put their civilians at Peril so I think when we talk about Hamas we're seeing many uh um not just actions but uh um practice itic es um um that that are definitely um violations of the laws of War uh of the very fundamental principles that you have just mentioned the principle of Distinction the principle of proportionality uh and and one more that is even less uh being uh uh mentioned usually the obligation to take precautionary measures even when you are targeting legitimate targets even when you are expected the that that the result will be proportional even then you must choose the the weapons you must uh um choose the the means of warfare in a way that would uh minimize the damage to civilians I I I I don't want to get too much to it maybe we'll talk about it later but I would like to invoke the word genocide here and I'm not saying that genocide has been committed by the Hamas but I'm saying this is an this is something that we should not rule out if indeed if indeed the Hamas militants have had a plan and they got orders to butcher Israelis on a systematic fashion and annihilate uh uh uh communities in the Gaza envelope I think if that was the intention to annihilate Israeli communities and a cluster of communities that could really amount to the crime of genocide because that means that they wanted to physically destroy a part a distinctive part of a group the group being Israelis the part of it being the uh uh uh uh communities around uh the Gaza Strip so that's with the Kamas I can keep on because I have a long list of of of of things that I think uh uh of of uh violations that the Hamas has been engaging in not just from not not beginning in October 7th let us remind the the um listeners and the viewers that the the the international criminal court is investigating um all kinds of uh uh uh suspicions that Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups have engaged in uh war crimes when it comes to Israel here I have to say the following I have loads of suspicions and loads of concerns but while I know what happened I feel I know enough on what happened on October 7th I and enough to make a call to say that there were violations and severe violations um I think when it comes to the Israeli uh operation and the Israeli War there are many many very difficult questions and many many suspicions of violations but I think I don't have enough information enough evidence because at the end of the day the law follows the fact and not the other way around so I'll give a few first of all we're we're um watching a campaign a war campaign that has completely annihilated destroyed big residential areas um house you know homes of people uh uh commercial areas um clinics schools the north is is almost wiped out the north of the Gaza Strip that begs the question was there an intentional uh um um targeting of civilians or civilian objects and I can't answer that because the question is what was the aim why every each and every Target was targeted what was the information that led the Israeli military to decide to Target these places and the same thing when it comes to proportionality the numbers you have mentioned are horrendous 13,000 people dead 8,000 of them civilians 5,000 of them uh minors this is this is catastrophic in and of itself it is not a proof that the that the uh attack was disproportionate it definitely shifts the burden for the IDF to explain how we got to this situation and uh I I and and I'll give one example and I'll stop here because too much time is been taken but I know for example on one case there was one bombing of jabalia refugee camp about 50 or 60 civilians were killed in that uh uh uh uh in that attack an IDF spokesperson was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer on CNN he confirmed that they knew the Army knew that there were civilians there and he also said that the target was a Hamas Brigadier Commander if that is true then this is for me a textbook case of disproportional attack if the target was a a commander of a small area within the Gaza Strip and knowingly they have killed 60 or 70 people that's for me a disproportionate attack so every bomb and there were thousands of them has to be scrutinized this way to ask the IDF what why did you target this what were the uh uh uh uh uh expectations what did you know about civilian potential casualties and that's how we measure it and the last thing I want to say is about uh uh about forcible transfer we saw the uh the Israelis the Israeli Army we I am an Israeli we have coercively uh transferred more than a million people from their homes and their uh uh neighborhoods of north of Gaza to the South Israel has never said never provided an assurance that they will be allowed back I don't know why no one no one talks about but no one in the Israeli government or the Israeli Army has made a clear statement saying once the war is over once uh uh military actions uh uh end you will be allowed to to go back that is very frightening because if that is the case and Israel is not allowing them to go back or thinking of not allowing them to go back that's a a a a a crime against humanity of forceable uh transfer and uh uh and also The Alibi for for coercing them to leave their their neighborhoods is to take precautionary measures to let the people go from area we know is going to be a war zone to protect them but you cannot you cannot push Mill more than a million people away without making sure that the place where they're going to is a safe haven where they're they can get uh all the humanitarian needs for survival and Israel not only coercively forcibly uh uh transferred them but also sealed the borders and the statement you mentioned by the Israeli uh uh Minister of Defense no water no no food no water no fuel is a horrendous uh uh uh uh state statement that suggests a tactic of starvation which is again a war crime so the question of how much humanitarian assistance is allowed in and is it enough for the people who are moved is crucial in order for us to assess uh the Israeli uh uh uh um the Israeli actions in light of international laws of War I have more but I'll stop here thank you so much um I want to um pick up on a couple of threads um and move to you now um Professor Michael W um first of all I just I want to thank you um Michael S for mentioning um the concept of not only an attack not only having to be proportionate but also to use the least harmful means uh to achieve the same military Target a military objective um and this is something that uh I think is lost on a lot of uh a lot of politicians and um and Scholars who are who are discussing uh what's happening right now it's not enough for an attack to be proportionate it needs to also be the least harmful the to cause the least amount of Civilian harm um you also mentioned that it's a war crime to wage war from within civilian areas and I just want to remind every one that Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas in the world um and when I I'll use that as a segue to turn to you um Michael W um to talk a little bit about uh how Israel is framing or or justifying the war and how we um relate to that so um you know Israel's primary state of justification for the war has been the need to eradicate Hamas uh from Gaza and much of it moral justification for the large numbers of deaths that we're seeing again you know up to uh 13,000 in climbing um is that Hamas has embedded itself in among its civilian population um you know IDF spokes people have said for instance they could have avoided High casualties and destruction but this was their choice and it's not always clear if that's if that was hamas's choice or the entire gazen population's Choice um but but this is new and Israel has long accused class of using of using uh human Shields um because of this because of frequently placing their bases of operation within civilian areas at the same time the IDF also has bases of operation within civilian areas um from towns along the Gaza border to um settlements in the West Bank to even its headquarters underneath um Central Tel Aviv so my question is is there a difference um are both sides essentially using human Shields um and does does this justify the high number of civan casualties in Gaza well um I greatly appreciate um Michael s's caution in assessing um Israel's war and if he is cautious from Israel I have to be even more cautious from New York um so I want to I want to begin by saying something about what I call the asymmetry trap um Israel has walked into a war designed by Hamas um in such a way that there is no way to fight the war without killing civilians and I think that is an intentional design it is a strategy because every civilian that Israel kills is a political asset for Hamas Hamas benefits if if you ask the classic question who benefits Hamas benefits from every civilian killed and Israel loses out in in the the Judgment of the world for every civilian it kills and it's very important to uh to see this as a a strategy and then the crucial question is how does Israel respond to the trag to the strategy um and some of the responses seem to me obviously wrong the the shutting down of electricity the closing off of of the supplies that people need to live um driving people South and not making provision for a possible existence in the South um all of that seems to me to be to be wrong but it it also has to be said that Hamas apparently has enormous resources of fuel for example um it runs this extraord orinary ventilation system that brings fresh air into 300 miles of tunnels um and all of that since Kamas is the government of Gaza and its first responsibility is to the citizens Israel is being asked to step in when the government of Gaza refuses to provide for its own I won't call them citizens its own subjects now that I think Israel is required to step in but it is very very important in in terms of the judgments of the world that the world know that Israel is stepping in when the government of Gaza has stepped out has actually refused to provide the fuel that the hospitals need and that every other um uh way of helping the people of a Gaza survive needs requires fuel um so the question as I stated it was how does Israel respond to this I think virtually impossible situation um it's as if the the laws of war and the theory of just War have made it impossible to fight a just war and I do begin by thinking by by saying that a forceful response to the massacre of 7 October is that is Justified and the question is what kind of force and I agree that um targeting has to be careful I also think um the search for intelligence um and even the taking of risks in in the search for intelligence so that the bombing can be precise that is required um and and I also think it's obviously required that humanitarian Aid be uh available how is Israel meeting this uh I i' I am I am not sure um the example that Michael S gave the the 2,000 ton bomb used supposedly to kill one person that doesn't seem right and I wonder if um they weren't also trying to get at tunnels underneath um because well anyway I I I I suspect um from from a distance that Michael S is right in his Judgment of that event um but I it it it is so hard to it is so hard to fight such a war and the the question of of who benefits leads me to think that if the IDF commanders are acting rationally they must be trying to minimize civilian deaths but of course we also have to take into account the moral lunacy of the political leaders of the country um I don't know to what extent they are governing the conduct of the War uh if the conduct of the war is is rational then I I I have to think that there are real efforts being made to find Targets and to hit them as precisely as as possible what we see on American television is uh Rubble neighborhoods demolished uh and we are not told what lies underneath the rubble we don't know I suspect that at least some of the journalists do know but they don't tell us um there is an excellent study of the conduct of the war in 2 I believe it was 2014 Which documents that Hamas was firing Rockets from schoolyards and Hospital parking lots um if it is doing that again then some response must be justified but how to respond I agree it requires not only precise aiming but it requires the use of weapons which are suited to the to the task of hitting and that Target and not everything around it um so I when I talk about the war here I try to be sure that the difficulties of the a symmetry trap are are fully realized and that the judgments we make of trying to work within that trap uh have to be careful um and what what we should aim at most somehow is the assignment of responsibility and I can describe what I how I think that works in a crude way that Hamas is responsible for all the civilian deaths that its design of the war was meant to produce and Israel is responsible for any deaths that were not imposed or required by the design of the war um and I that's I can't assign numbers on either side but I think the assignment of responsibility is uh is crucial and it has to be divided in some way every time we every time we talk about the the the dead and dying we have to talk about responsibility um I I should add one thing I I years ago I wrote a an argument against proportionality um uh uh because I thought proportionality arguments were being used I don't remember where in Vietnam or Afghanistan or one of America's Wars proportionality arguments were being used to justify too much because it's so easy to manipulate the mathematics uh and um so i' I I focus in my judgments about the war on responsibility now I'll stop there we have much more to talk about thank you so much and I think um you should both know that the the Q&A is is uh very very active and uh a lot of the questions that are being asked there are um topics that I I want us to discuss and um anyway and but one of them that I think is a good Segway from where you just left off um Michael W and I um would love for um Michael S to um to respond and then of course you can add as well afterwards but is the is the is really a question about um whether international law is helpful to us in a situation like this um I think a lot of um a lot of people both lay people and um and lawyers um have been particularly frustrated over the past several weeks um by you know sort of feeling helpless um and wondering what can international law especially the laws of war do for us um in these kinds of circumstances what how can it address problems acutely as they're happening um and also prevent um you know future uh destruction um and there's there's I think a bigger question of is is IHL is are the laws of war um even um able capable of handling uh situations the way that they have developed since those laws were um were codified and the laws were codified when they were thinking of um the Civil War in the United States or um or World War II World War One 2 you know uh in Europe different uh scenarios both in terms of who the fighters were what the territory looked like um you know when occupation law was written it certainly didn't it seems anticipate a 55 year uh long occupation what what can we um what can we gain from international law right now that's a beautiful question um um not for a lawyer whose toolkit is lost um so I'll make an analogy which you Emily I think will appreciate very much I am very frustrated by the Israeli Supreme Court and I have been frustrated from by the Israeli Supreme Court for years and when I think to myself what is it good for anyway I ask myself well what would be the reality without it and I think we should look at International laws of war in a similar way and it's a bit different because sometimes the frustration from the Supreme Court is that I think it gives bad decisions International laws of war are meant to present um the most fundamental um moral Compass of humanity and it is and and Humanity made a choice it made a choice not on the one hand to allow the war to be an event that has no restrictions and no and no laws and on the other hand they did not Outlaw Wars and it did not take the pacifist option it very neatly tailored a right to to use force in very very certain uh uh conditions and when you use Force to maintain a certain amount of minimum of humanity our frustration or my frustration is not with the laws of war but I think most of us are frustrated by what we see as a very frequent violations that go without any punishment with the Imp of violations of the laws of war but then we have to ask ourselves would it be better if we didn't have them I think to a large degree most actors in The International Community want to be seen as they as abiding to International laws of war even when they are not they want to be seen and definitely Israel is a good example I think I you know I am a very outspoken critic of Israel's way of conducting its Wars and the way that uh that it that it violates almost every paragraph in the Fourth Geneva Convention when it comes to the occupation but Israel would never agree with me it would always want to be seen as if it does uh adhere to international law and that effort that effort saves people's lives even when it is cosmetic even when it is when it when when they are trying to outsmart international law and interpret it in a in a in a counter textual and and counter uh um you know in in in a way that is completely absurd they still want to maintain the facade of being uh acting according to the law and that is a place where the International Community uh um lawyers International institutions may come in and demand more and that is basically what is happening so are we in a good place no we're not and there are uh uh um a lot of violations and severe violations of international law but also but we have a tool that allows us to constantly push for more uh enforcement to constantly push for more adherence uh to these laws so I guess the summary is yes we have a problem but no International laws of war are not redundant they are very very important and I'll just add a a paraphrase of Professor unaa hathway from Yale University who recently said there's no accounting for all the actions that have not been taken by States and armies because of international law much better this is what I wanted to say but put much in a much better wording well um that's why I've had to quote someone else as well um I want to turn now to a maybe a final question from me and then and then to uh the Q&A but um the topic of genocide uh has been coming up uh quite a lot um recently and um it's you know the the center of many many campaigns um both by activists also um there have been uh Scholars genocide Scholars who've come out um and said that this is genocide specifically looking at Israel's actions um Michael S earlier raised the possibility that Hamas has also or has um potentially committed uh acts of genocide um and I think the the term is being used both legally and um and non-legally so I I want to ask you Michael W um whether you think this is the right term uh to describe Israel's actions um and and or hamas's actions and uh perhaps if we're not there now are we in danger of of moving there uh going forward um big question I I suspect that um Hamas has genocidal aspirations Visa the Jews of Israel and I suspect that there are Jewish Fanatics who have genocidal intentions Visa the Palestinians on the West Bank but I don't think um anything that's been done or is being done right now is genocidal and I think most of the talk about genocide certainly in the United States is simply propaganda not um it's not the way we should be talking about what's what's going on we should be asking I think the questions that I suggested about responsibility um so I and to come let me just comment briefly on the usefulness of international law I am uh um I I I value international law I think international law is the product of Catholic just War Theory um secularized in the 17th 18th centuries and um my work has been another version of secularizing Catholic just War Theory but I did manage to write a book about just and unjust War without mentioning international law so I there there are ways of talking about war that I think they overlap a lot a lot I saw that because I agreed with pretty much everything that Michael S said they overlap a lot but they're not quite the same and I always remember a remark by uran habas about something that NATO was doing in Kosovo he said it violates international law but it is morally necessary so there are possible conflicts but right now today I don't have a conflict uh with um Michael S's vers Michael s's version of international law or his application of it why don't we jump to um a couple of questions H there are so many coming in and we have limited time but I'm trying to pull some themes um so one of them is um a question about whether the Palestinian people and including Hamas repres if we if we accept that they represent them um have the right to resist the occupier with by force um and I imagine that that is both a legal and and a moral question but it is something that has come up of course recently um and for some in defense of hamas's Acts um and I I see coming up in these questions do you have a response to that either either Michael well of of course they have a right to resist the the occupation um but there are then obligations that that go along with the the the resistance even even the oppressed have obligations and they the resistance would have to be [Music] um preferably nonviolent um and if it involved violence it would the violence would have to be directed narrowly at the the organizers perpetrators of the oppression uh and at no one at at no one else so terrorism is not a legitimate form of of resistance yeah uh I'm afraid we we have uh no um no quarrel on any of the topics uh for the panel it might be not good but for me it's great um OCC oppressed people and victims of of of all kinds of atrocities have a right to to resist them but it does not absorve them from basic moral and legal uh um rules and so um yeah I mean I think it's uh as simple as that and and yeah and and this is important because the much of the talk in what H I don't know how how it is called very Progressive left or I don't consider that much never mind but I much of the talk is about you know decolonialization is a is a dirty thing and and uh uh people oppressed and being colonized and and uh are um striving to end imperialism um are the weak ones and they can do things that that others can't I don't don't accept that um my um my grandmother was a holocaust Survivor and in her um and she went through the waro ghetto and uh then hid in the Aryan side of of foro for years and she wrote a book and in that book she wrote one of the main um challenges in the face of inhumanity and I'm not comparing is to remain human this is one of the main challenges and so and I'm and we've seen a lot of inhumanity in our region and the challenge of the other side is to remain human in even in the face of inhumanity thanks I think that the um the audience is is curious also to think about what can be done um so there have been many um suggestions uh that um the genocide convention be invoked or that um the already open matter at the icj the international Court of uh justice um be expanded to to look at this particular um incident or or this particular conflict um there is of course um renewed pressure on kareim Khan the prosecutor of the international criminal court um to investigate both Hamas and Israel's actions uh over the past month and a half um there are calls on the Biden administration every day including from within US Congress um to demand a ceasefire um what where what actions do you think can be taken will there be what what will stop the violence and will there be accountability I assume there will be uh a commission in Israel um that will investigate the the causes of or the the neglect um that produced 7 October I doubt and I hope there will be a political Reckoning with the the government at the time um there won't be a Kamas commission to investigate its what what its conduct um and I hope that if there is a international courts of one kind or another um that they will be as um as fairm minded as Michael S was in describing uh the full list of um of crimes that have been committed on both sides in this war and for the moral accounting there this takes place over time and um it has to do I think a lot with how we assign responsibility who gets the blame um and I I will argue for a uh a mixed response to that question um and there will be apologist on either side uh I hope the mixed response wins at the end Michael yeah I I I will only add that I think it is crucial two things I'll add two things one it is crucial to demand answers um Hamas is Hamas but I and and you know they will not see the ICC because if they're alive they will be Tried by and caught they will be Tried by Israel um but Israel has to give answers too and it has to be frank and it has to open uh uh and allow International examination of uh its uh conduct uh because responsibility and accountability uh is based on knowing the facts and uh in the past uh Israel was not forthcoming and it was not providing answers as it should and it should because if we don't not learn from what we're doing now we might do it again and if there is no public scrutiny of the way we fight our Wars um then uh um in violations of moral principles and legal uh uh uh prohibitions is is something that uh uh is more likely to happen and the second thing that I want to say is Israel is saturated with genocidal inight incitement and genocidal talk and uh uh um an incitement to ethnic cleansing and and deportation and and all kinds of things and these are not just uh uh you know uh um Facebook talkbacks but uh we're dealing with public figures we're dealing with political Leaders with uh media uh influencers with journalists uh ex generals um you know uh celebrities and this must must not just be stopped but there must be accountability for that because that seem seeks in and it goes and it eventually affects the way the officer or the soldier behaves in Gaza and the and demanding that this thing will be dealt with is is of utmost importance thank you so much I think that we have reached time um if there's anything else that you would like to add Michael W before we close and this is the time I think we we have um we have covered most of the the issues um I I hope that there is the kind of accounting that Michael S just described um but it first requires a political defeat for the the people that that he's talking about the religious zealots the ultra nationalists they have to be politically defeated and that's a matter for the Israeli people um there will be I think fairly soon after the war an election government will fall and the people of Israel have have decisions to make um in the in the United States I think the moral Reckoning after Vietnam took a a very long time um because it really didn't begin with the defeat of the people who who who fought the War um so I hope for the moral accounting but I hope even more for the political defeat thank you so much um there's obviously a lot more to be discussed um and I hope that we will have a chance again uh to unpack more of this um and most importantly that the that the violence will end as soon as possible thank you all thank you all so much um Michael Mel Emily I'm gonna stall for a moment because of those of you who wen't looking Emily was busy answering huge amounts of questions that we didn't get to within the hour so look in the Q&A for a lot of really uh important answers to things that we didn't get to I really appreciate that um so thanks for everyone um for joining us uh I just want to mention um December 3rd again those who weren't here at the beginning partners with Progressive Israel has a virtual um Israel Palestine Symposium and the two sessions on uh December 3D which is a Sunday will be devoted to a shared Society within the green line and it'll focus on questions of political uh economic equality and other areas of equality so I hope that you'll check that out the link uh is in the chat so uh you have a moment to click on that um and again for those who missed the opening uh I'll just reiterate that um what's allowed for today's program um to be free are generous contributions uh so again there's a link in the chat if you want to U use that uh giving Tuesday is just around the corner so no need to wait um and you can at any time visit progressiv israel.org for up putting programming um that's all for today I wish everyone for all who celebrate Thanksgiving a joyous Thanksgiving and I hope that um we're seeing some positive news um come out of Israel and Palestine today so um that's all we hope to see you next time and thanks for joining us today thank you very much thank you guys thank you most appreciated thank you
