Some More News - SMN: All The Terrible Arguments Used To Justify Genocide

Episode Date: February 28, 2024

Hi. On today's episode, we look at the many awful arguments used to attempt to justify the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza. SOURCES: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hTGE3uLKoBzqyu2I9acZAoHYp-hbI6DxmaQlMbK4_ZY/edit MERCH: https://shop.somemorenews.com PATREON: https://patreon.com/somemorenews If you want to take ownership of your health, start with AG1. Try AG1 and get a FREE 1-year supply of Vitamin D3+K2 AND 5 free AG1 Travel Packs with your first purchase exclusively at https://drinkAG1.com/morenews. Check it outl Good things come in big packages at MeUndies. Get 20% off your first order, plus free shipping, at https://MeUndies.com/morenews. MeUndies—comfort from the outside in. Twitter: https://twitter.com/SomeMoreNews Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/SomeMoreNews/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SomeMoreNews/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@somemorenews 00:00 - Intro 02:46 - The Situation In Gaza 06:20 - Argument 1: Do You Condemn Hamas? 12:15 - Argument 2: Hamas Uses Human Shields 20:35 - Argument 3: Why Don't Palestinian Civilians Just Evacuate? 27:10 - Argument 4: At Least The IDF Isn't Trying To Kill Civilians 38:22 - Argument 5: Israel Has To Get The Hostages Back 43:20 - Argument 6: We Must Defeat Hamas No Matter What 52:16 - Argument 7: Palestinians Deserve Collective Punishment 57:54 - Argument 8: Israel Has A Right To Exist/Defend Itself 1:07:13 - Whoops! Looks Like You’re Trying To Justify A Genocide!

. Hello and welcome to Some More News, the zany comedy news show where we talk about war crimes and genocide. I'm Cody, Comedy Johnston, and today's zany Israel and Palestine episode is brought to you by, nobody.

Really? No one wanted to hop on with some branded integration? Jimmy John's genocide jaunt with genocide spelled with a J. Send the idea to them. They're not, okay, no, okay. Money on the table, but whatever. Here's some news. This is gonna be a real one.

Like, so, so sorry. It's the new Gaza sequel you've been waiting for. This is gonna be a real one. Like, so, so sorry. It's the new Gaza sequel you've been waiting for. The twisters to our twister. And like those movies, we're gonna be sweatily injecting a bunch of jokes into a story about people losing their homes and dying. Cool, cool, cool.

So here's some more news. On October 7th of last year, roughly 1,139 people in Israel were brutally murdered and another 240 were kidnapped by Hamas, a political and military faction in charge of several parts of the Gaza Strip. This attack was truly terrible, unspeakable, awful stuff. And so naturally, the answer to such horrific war crimes

is for Israel to commit even more war crimes. You know the saying, an eye for an eye is very good. And in fact, you should rip out as many eyes as possible to make a huge eyeball stew. Yum, yum, disgusting eyeballs. And listen, we're not war journalists. We're a bunch of news dirtbags who managed to convince some people to listen to opinions we have.

I'm high on salvia right now. Point is that if you don't know what's going on over there, you should probably Bing that. This isn't going to be a comprehensive look at what's happening. Instead, we're going to focus on the language being used by people to talk about this war, starting with the fact that some people are calling it a war

and not perhaps another word for it. And more specifically, we're going to talk about the various rationalizations for the brutality being inflicted on the Palestinian people and see if they hold up. And perhaps answer the question of what exactly we should define this, let's call it kerfuffle, as being.

And to be clear, this is not brought to you by Jimmy Johns and their new Kickin' Cajun Chicken Sandwich, which would be in really poor taste if it was. Unlike the sandwich, which tastes great. Unlike the sandwich, which tastes great. The most popular arguments for doing a genocide. Okay, we are being sued by Jimmy Johns. That's amazingly fast and not at all surprising. Good on their legal team, very fair.

So to begin, we need an overview of what Israel is calling the Operation Iron Swords military campaign in Gaza. Although Netanyahu is workshopping other names like Genesis War. I don't know Benjamin, sounds a little ominous. Have you tried something a little lighter like Operation Humanitarian Swords or Genesis Chicken Sandwich brought to you by Jimmy Johns?

Whatever you call it, the current Israeli military assault on Gaza is quote, "'One of history's heaviest conventional bombing campaigns,' according to the US military historian Robert Pate. By October 30th of 2023, an estimated 6,000 bombs per week had been dropped on Gaza. And as of the recording of this episode on February 21st, over 28,000 Palestinians had been dropped on Gaza. And as of the recording of this episode, on February 21st, over 28,000 Palestinians had been killed. If you think these numbers are made up, which the

president said they were out loud in front of everybody, even the IDF admits that they think the Gazan death estimates are accurate. According to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 70% of the casualties are thought to be women and children. The exact number of children killed just keeps going up, and it is currently at an estimated 12,300, as AP puts it, minors. Very cool.

To put it in media speak, over 115 individuals who have not yet aged to adulthood are met with a death-related outcome in Gaza every day. UNICEF spokesperson James Elder has labeled this a war on children, saying that the rate of kids being killed is higher than most modern conflicts. It's not a dramatic line. It's a line because most crises, they impact children terribly because children are the most vulnerable, but most have about a casualty rate of children around 20%. This is 40. This is twice as lethal to children

as many conflicts we've seen in the last 15 or 20 years. Hey, bad work. There are very few jobs in the world where having a 40% child casualty rate is acceptable. There might not be any now that I think about it, actually. There shouldn't be any. jobs in the world where having a 40% child casualty rate is acceptable. Might not be any, now that I think about it actually, there shouldn't be any. Meanwhile, over 60% of Gaza's housing has been damaged

or destroyed. This is more than 300,000 homes, and nearly two million Palestinians have been displaced, representing 85% of the total Gazan population. Here's a visual representation that the Guardian created showing damaged or destroyed civilian infrastructure. It's not a comprehensive map of all the damage, just what they were able to analyze.

Due to the extensive damage to civilian infrastructure, the hospital system is collapsing, with doctors fearing massive disease outbreaks due to the conditions inside Gaza, not to mention a very real risk of famine in the area. To quote the Secretary General of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Human Affairs, more than half a million people, a quarter of the population,

are facing what experts classify as catastrophic levels of hunger. UNICEF found that displaced children in the South have access to just 10% of the water they need. Pretty terrible stuff, which is probably why South Africa has actually accused Israel of genocide in the International Court of Justice. So at this point, you're probably wondering,

but do you condemn Hamas? Yeah, that, that's what you're wondering. Because whenever one questions the morality of what Israel is doing in Gaza, or talks about the suffering of Palestinians, we're first supposed to answer the question, do you condemn Hamas? The implication being that caring about war crimes

against Palestinians means you think war crimes against Israelis are totally cool and good. An assumption that is typically even worse if your complexion is not as pasty as mine. Pasty? Pasty? Will you condemn Hamas? Is there a reason though, Sarah,

that you can't specifically call out Hamas? Billionaires who've donated upwards of 500, 600 million dollars to Ivy League schools are now backing out over the school's failure to condemn the Hamas attacks on Israel. Are you prepared to call Hamas a terror group? Is it possible to have a rational discussion? You can't can you?

Do you condemn that kind of action? Neat fact, in that last clip, the guy being asked to condemn Hamas was talking about his six family members who had just been killed in Israeli airstrikes against Gaza. But thank goodness we asked him about Hamas. This is of course the first argument we're going to tackle. We all knew we'd cover it, so we're getting it out of the way. Like when Linkin Park plays One Step Closer

early in the set. This, this is exactly like that. Do you condemn Hamas? So my answer is yes. Of course I condemn Hamas and other militant group actions on October 7th, when they committed horrible war crimes by killing and kidnapping Israeli civilians.

Fuck you, Hamas! It's actually a really easy question. The information that's available from Israeli social security data indicates that at least 1,139 Israelis were killed, which includes around 695 Israeli civilians and 36 children. We don't know exactly how every victim died, and even Israeli news outlets question

if at least some of the people who died were killed in the crossfire by the Israeli military. But that seems moot to the larger tragedy, because we absolutely know that Hamas and other militant organizations raided civilian homes and took civilians captive, which is itself a war crime. It's absolutely unspeakable. The horror is just too much for one news guy to fully convey. So yes, absolutely, I condemn war crimes that Hamas and other groups committed against Israeli civilians. Even if you think, like I do, that Palestinians have very legitimate

grievances with the oppression they've endured from Israel. I still think punishing civilians for the actions of their government, aka collective punishment, is wrong. That's kind of the whole point. Like, if someone opposes the death penalty, even for murderers, it doesn't mean they are pro-murderer. It's literally the opposite. That's why I also condemn the war crimes that Israel committed before October 7th, and all the war crimes they've committed since, which trust me, we will discuss. But it's such a strange framing that being against war crimes is like a team sport, that caring about Palestinians being killed

means that you need to be questioned about whether you care about Israelis being killed. I don't like war crimes. I think it's wrong to kill or harm civilians, period. And I also think it's important to look at the context of October 7th, not because it justifies the killing and kidnapping of civilians, but because understanding historical context is important

for maybe ending the cycle of violence. But do you condemn Hamas? I literally did like a minute ago. And going back to that argument and the primary problem with it, well, I guess the question is, what do people mean by condemn? Condemn as in disapprove of?

Or condemn as in sentence to death? And to expand on this, what do people mean by Hamas? Do they mean a faction of people in Palestine carrying out terrible attacks? Or do they mean Palestine as a whole? Because right now, it doesn't seem like Israel is making a big distinction between any of those definitions.

For example, are ambulances Hamas? I ask because the IDF regularly attacks things like ambulances, which Israel claims are being used by Hamas, but hasn't given any concrete evidence for these claims. It's hard to independently verify IDF claims when Israel is blocking journalists from entering Gaza. And in many cases, the IDF are outright killing them.

But in terms of earlier conflicts, a United Nations fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict in 2009 found no evidence that hospitals or ambulances were being used to shield military activity. But despite this, they keep claiming that hospitals are Hamas and giving very bad evidence to support that.

Evidence that some would say is misleading. But do you condemn Hamas? Yeah, man, I do. The problem is that I have no fucking idea what Hamas is. No one has clearly defined the parameters. They are a vague boogeyman you're using to draw a hard line I have no fucking idea what Hamas is. No one has clearly defined the parameters. They are a vague boogeyman you're using to draw a hard line that conveniently puts all of Gaza behind it.

And I think that's the point. As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly told his fellow right-wing Likud political party members in 2019, anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas. This is part of our strategy to isolate the Palestinians

in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank. See, it's extremely convenient to paint this broad picture of evil that needs to be wiped out and insist that everyone condemn it without making any clear distinctions. This is aided by keeping journalists in the dark and basically getting to say whatever you want about the enemy, including this.

Hamas uses human shields. This is a very common argument as seen in this crudely drawn cartoon. Or this one. Or this one. You see, we can't help but kill all those kids because they're being worn as body armor by Hamas. Hundreds of terrorists are also hiding behind human shields. That Hamas is willing to use innocent civilians as essentially human shields.

And they use this strategy of human shields for a reason because they think it works. They think that Israel will be blamed for these civilian casualties. Wow, Hamas is literally using people as human shields. I mean, not literally, there's no evidence of Hamas militants literally grabbing a person and hiding behind him.

But to be fair and balanced, this requires a lot more nuance. You may not know that there are actually different tiers of what makes a human shield. At least I hope you don't know that. Like if you knew that without skipping a beat, it would be potentially worrying. And none of these tiers explicitly involve

a person literally standing in front of someone. There are involuntary human shields, as in people who are pressured or forced to be in strategic places in order to deter an attack. Voluntary human shields, as in people who are pressured or forced to be in strategic places in order to deter an attack, voluntary human shields, which are people who, you know, voluntarily position themselves in strategic spots. And then there are proximate shields, which are basically civilians

who happen to live close to the combat. Now you could, and people have, totally argue that Hamas is doing several of these tiers. That argument being that they are purposefully setting up their hideouts around hospitals or schools in order to shield themselves. There is a history of Hamas encouraging citizens to stand their ground instead of evacuating after all.

Not to mention that they often fire rockets from civilian infrastructure or safe zones. Although that evidence is up for debate. But if they are using human shields, it's also not working, you know, because the IDF keeps bombing those hospitals and schools and safe zones. Also, Gaza is extremely dense, you know, like a city.

It's actually one of the most densely populated areas in the world, making it hard to have any military activity that isn't near a civilian zone. So if we're making the argument that having any military presence near a civilian area counts as human shields, how far do we extend it? You know who also has bases near civilian structures? The IDF.

And there have even been people questioning whether or not they are putting people in danger with things like power plants that could be vulnerable to attack. In fact, what of US bases then? We have tons of bases near civilians, right? I'm not saying we're the same as Hamas, but rather that this conversation isn't black and white.

What about the draft? If it's hard to know who's active in the IDF or a civilian in Israel, is it justified to kill civilians because they could be or may have once been in the IDF? No, right? I'd say no. These questions may be complex and varying,

but I'd argue that none of them justify killing a civilian. Like going back to those cartoons of those guys using babies as body armor, if that was literally happening, you still wouldn't shoot, right? The point isn't to shoot the babies. And so assuming that Hamas is purposefully setting up

in civilian areas, well, that doesn't mean that we can or should kill civilians. But do you condemn Hamas? Oh, okay, so this is gonna be a running bit. Awesome, good to know. Hey, wanna hear something ironic? You know who is using civilian cover? The IDF.

Israeli soldiers have dressed as doctors, nurses, and civilians to assassinate targets inside a hospital, which if you're curious, is a war crime for a few reasons. For starters, it is against the Geneva Conventions to kill a fallen or wounded target. And it is also a war crime to commit an act of perfidy, basically pretending to be a protected class, such as a civilian or member of the Red Cross,

in order to deceive and kill a target. Why is this so serious? Because if combatants dress as doctors or civilians who trick their targets, doctors will become even more so suspected targets. This is why it's so serious if militants use ambulances for military use. While Israel has accused Hamas of this

without solid evidence, the IDF themselves uses Palestinian ambulances for military use, as documented by B'Tselem, a Jerusalem-based human rights tracker. This includes forcing ambulances to give them rides to checkpoints, and even, in one instance, using ambulance drivers as literal human shields

to block people throwing stones at them. Not as bad as bullets, obviously, but still a dick move. And in fact, there's evidence the IDF straight up uses Palestinians as human shields for bullets. The UN fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict in 2009 found, quote, four incidents in which the Israeli armed forces coerced Palestinian civilian men at gunpoint to take part in house searches during the military operations.

They concluded that the IDF used Palestinian civilians as human shields and that these civilians were questioned under threat of death or injury to extract information about Hamas. So is it okay to use civilians as human shields if you're the good guys? And are you really the good guys at that point? Or at any point in a decades long occupation?

What do you condemn them as? Great point, thanks. So you might be wondering why the people in Gaza don't simply leave instead of acting as proximity human shields. Well, shucks, I have an answer. But first, and this is truly messed up, we have to break for ads.

My goodness, inappropriate. By horse, it's Cody. Time to get completely whiplashed by an ad. You know, taking care of your health isn't always easy, but it should at least be simple. And if possible, a little erotic. Would love a clown or two involved as well, hoo-hoo. That's why for the last 300 years,

I've been drinking AG1. It's just one scoop mixed in water once a day, every day, and it makes me feel like there's a sensual circus inside of me, do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do, giving me the nourishment I need to plow through the day. That's because according to AG1, each serving of AG1 delivers my daily dose of vitamins, minerals, pre and probiotics, and more.

It's a powerful, healthy habit that's also powerfully simple. Watch as I gulp. No one asked me to drink the product on camera, but I do because this is America and I want to. So I did. Speaking of wants and needs, AG1 wants me to say that, quote, "'If there's one product I had to recommend

"'to elevate your health, it's AG1. "'And that's why I've partnered with them for so long.'" End quote. So if you want to take ownership of your health, start with AG1. Try AG1 and get a free one year supply of vitamin D3 plus K2 and five free AG1 travel packs with your first purchase exclusively

at drinkag1.com slash more news. That's drinkag1.com slash more news. Check it out. Don't chug it right after a burrito. Don't do that. Boy, that sponsor did not ask to be a part of this, but counterpoint, they literally asked to sponsor the show. So nevermind, they love this.

We're going through arguments that people tend to say when defending Israel's assault on Gaza. One being that since Hamas is using human shields or rather setting up near civilian buildings, then we have no choice but to shoot civilians. In fact, hey, hey, hey now, if Palestinians don't want to die, why the heck don't they just leave?

They have actually given civilians in Gaza a list, a map. It's online. A list of areas where they can go to be more safe. There's not too many modern militaries in advance of conducting operations that would actually do that. So they are making an effort to at least inform the civilian population about where to go and where to avoid. And one has to ask, yes, they had ample opportunity to leave. I don't know what happened. I don't have the specific circumstances. I know there's deadly combat going on now in the north still between these IDF and Hamas terrorists. Yes. And we don't want to see anyone caught up

in the crossfire. But why didn't they heed the advice and leave the area? You can't blame them. There's now fighting- I don't blame them. Seems reasonable, right? Let's say I fart in a room. This room, right now, without telling anyone. Well, that's rude. But if I announce that I will be farting in the room,

then give people ample time to leave, well then if they don't leave, it's on them, right? They must be some kind of fart perverts. Now, replace my farts with bombs and this room with the homes of the people being asked to leave. Well, that actually doesn't seem reasonable now. Why don't Palestinian civilians just evacuate? So let's start with the basics.

What exactly are these evacuation orders? On October 13th, 2023, the Israeli military ordered more than 1 million Palestinians in Northern Gaza to move to South Gaza within 24 hours. If you think about that for more than a second, you might notice that it's logistically impossible to move that many people in that little time. For example, some of those people are in hospitals

and therefore are in conditions that would mean literal death if they are moved. But even if everyone in Gaza did safely evacuate to the South, apparently that still could mean death because according to the South African ICJ court case and the UN, they were quote, "'bombed again in the South and told to flee once again further South or the Southwest,

where they are reduced to living in makeshift tents in camps with no water, sanitation or other facilities.'" In other words, if you don't evacuate, you get bombed. And if you do evacuate, you also get bombed with quote, numerous reported instances of shelling along the routes and of other violence by Israeli forces against evacuating Palestinian civilians and continued bombing South of Wadi Gaza

throughout this time, killing many Palestinians who evacuated. So yes, technically they called for an evacuation, the way Jigsaw gives people the means to escape his traps. Perhaps you heard of that absolutely heartbreaking story in the Washington Post about an entire family being killed while trying to evacuate, including both parents, three teenagers, an 11- old and a four year old.

The final survivor was named Hind, who spoke with phone dispatchers before also being killed, but not before the paramedics attempting to rescue her were also wiped out in the attack. Hind was six years old. I'm not telling you this to be a bummer, but rather to paint a picture as to why a family in Palestine might think it's safer

to simply stay inside rather than evacuate their home. Because there are so many stories like this of people trying to flee the war zone and being picked off by gunfire, which causes paramedics to try and reach them only to also be killed. But hey, Israeli spokesperson Mark Regev says that this is just Palestinians voting with their feet.

The overwhelming majority of the population of the Northern Gaza Strip has fled, has heeded our advice, have voted with their feet, and have vacated the area. You see how manipulative that framing is? If by fleeing, these citizens have somehow voted against Hamas, then it's nice and easy to flip that and say that people who stayed have also voted,

but there's no voting here. These people aren't making political choices. They are just trying to survive. And right now it seems just as likely that evacuating will kill you. To quote the UN special rapporteur on the human rights of internally displaced persons, Israel has reneged on promises of safety made to those who complied with its order to evacuate

northern Gaza. Israel is also bombing refugee camps, to which Palestinians are fleeing to try to avoid the bombings. On Christmas Eve, 86 people were killed in Al-Megazi refugee camp in the middle area after Israel's military ordered civilians to move from south of Wadi Gaza to middle Gaza. The UN secretary general said, quote, "'The people of Gaza are being told to move "'like human pinballs, "'ricocheting between ever smaller slivers of the south "'without any of the basics for survival.

"'Even when those fleeing aren't bombed or shot, injured people are being forced to evacuate on foot where they risk dying of their injuries. Oftentimes they have to walk for miles to get any help. That includes a boy that according to UNICEF, whose leg had been blown off in the violence, who had spent three or four days trying to reach the South, delayed by checkpoints.

Ultimately, these evacuation orders are just a way for them to feel like they're being compassionate while avoiding any blame for civilian deaths. And it's not new. A UN Human Rights Council report in 2015 found, quote, "'Warnings to evacuate were meant "'to create sterile combat zones, "'and the people remaining in the area

would no longer be considered civilians, and thus benefit from the protection afforded by their civilian status. The HRC backed up this claim with a statement from the Israeli head of the Doctrine Desk at the Infantry Corps headquarters, who had said, quote, "'In peacetime security, soldiers stand "'facing a civilian population,

"'but in wartime, there is no civilian population, "'just an enemy.'" Yeah, I imagine it's way easier to reduce civilian deaths when you can just reclassify them as enemies. That's like how I eat a bag of Doritos kale for lunch. But hold on, it's not like the IDF is purposefully trying to kill civilians. Certainly if we try to debunk a claim like that, we'll get nowhere.

At least the IDF isn't trying to kill civilians. Oh, I guess that's something we actually have to address. Not a great sign. actually have to address. Not a great sign. That's Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Bing him. He's a pretty big part of this. And while it's a little sus to have to go out of your way to say you're not trying to kill civilians, I don't have a way to finish that sentence. Not just him, though. The though. The US State Department has assured us the IDF isn't purposefully trying to kill civilians either. I have not seen evidence that they're intentionally killing civilians.

We believe that far too many civilians have been killed. But again, this goes back to the underlying problem of this entire situation, which is that Hamas has embedded itself inside civilians. Darn you Hamas! How dare you make us kill civilians? Which we super don't wanna do, thank you very much. Put us down for no.

Check off the no box for killing civilians. That does it. So is it truly unintentional and just an extremely incompetent military that manages to accidentally kill at least 60% civilian targets. I didn't pull out a number. 61 is literally the percentage of civilians being killed

from airstrikes, according to Haaretz, which explains why they have to put out official pressers stating that they in fact aren't trying to kill innocent people. Like, holy shit, that's a sitcom joke with a character saying something like, are you trying to hit me in the face with your dick? Or something like that.

They usually don't have dicks in sitcoms. Okay, pivoting back to the question I still can't believe we have to ask. Are they trying to kill civilians? It's starting to look like a hard maybe. Maybe a sprinkle of yes? A video captured by a citizen journalist on January 22nd and broadcast on CNN showed footage

of a group of unarmed Palestinians holding a white flag of surrender. An Israeli tank was shown positioned nearby, and then one of the men was shot and killed. We're going to show a brief clip of them waving the flag, but not of them being shot, because of course we're not gonna show that. Yeah, there's kinda no way to see those people

literally waving a white flag and mistake it for aggression. Maybe they thought the flag was a ghost? Anyway, the Israeli military says it's reviewing the footage so I'm sure it'll all work out. But was this just a one-off mistake? Was it somehow Hamas hiding behind the Israeli tank, shooting their own civilians to make Israel look bad? Well, we actually do have more evidence

that the Israeli military is aware that they are killing civilians, and at the very least, doing nothing to change that. And it stems from another claim often used to defend Israel's military actions, that Israel has advanced targeted weaponry and uses AI to pick targets in theory to reduce civilian casualties.

But honestly, it's more about efficiency. They're calling this AI the gospel because sure, I guess we all wanna live in a Mission Impossible film. But hey, if they have this advanced AI to pick where to bomb why is there still a 60% civilian casualty rate? Could it have something to do with the fact that nearly half of the bombs Israel has dropped have been unguided bombs, according to US intelligence.

It's hard to reconcile the idea that Israel's bombing is incredibly precise and selective when it also isn't that. And so one independent Israeli magazine looked into this. Their reporter Yuval Abraham got in touch with anonymous sources in the Israeli military, investigating the AI system used to select bombing targets in Gaza.

According to the article, the Israeli military has quote, "'significantly expanded its bombing of targets that are not distinctly military in nature. Targets include private residences, public buildings, infrastructure, and high-rise apartments.'" Sources interviewed within the Israeli intelligence community said that the Israeli military defines these targets as power targets

intended to create a shock that will lead civilians to put pressure on Hamas. So like, terrorism, got it. You're doing a terrorism. Just say that, just say it's terrorism. In other words, it really sounds like they are targeting civilians, or at least being so loose with their targeting that they know civilians will die

and want them to die to deter Hamas. And that would certainly explain why there are so many civilian deaths, at least according to this report. At the very least, they simply don't care how many people die if it also kills members of Hamas. According to sources, the number of predicted civilian deaths is quote,

"'Calculated and known in advance "'to the Army's intelligence units, "'who also know shortly before carrying out an attack, roughly how many civilians are certain to be killed. And that the Israeli military command knowingly approved the killing of hundreds of Palestinian civilians in an attempt to assassinate a single top Hamas military commander.

Another source told them about quote, "'Cases in which we shell based on a wide cellular "'pinpointing of where the target is killing civilians. "'This is often done to save time instead of doing "'a little more work to get a more accurate pinpointing.'" Yeah, we could stop killing children and other civilians, but that's, it's hard. We got a lot of bombs on our plate already.

But do you condemn Hamas? Sure man, Hamas bad, Cody no like Hamas. Back to the IDF war crimes. It should be noted that this one magazine isn't the only evidence. A Human Rights Commission investigation into the 2014 Gaza war found quote, "'The sheer number of shells fired,

"'as well as the reported dropping of over 101 ton bombs "'in a short period of time in a densely populated area, "'raise questions as to the respect by the IDF "'of the rules of distinction, precautions, "'and proportionality. "'These methods and means employed by the IDF could not, "'in such a small and densely populated area, be directed at a specific military target

and could not adequately distinguish between civilians and civilian objects and military objectives. I mean, 60 freaking percent. It's hard to pretend that's an accident. Nor is it easy to overlook the disproportionate number of journalists who have been killed. According to the ICJ court documents, Palestinian journalists have been killed at a higher rate than any war or conflict in the past century.

After only two months, more journalists were killed in the current conflict than were killed during all of World War II. If these estimates are accurate, the total death toll is at least 100, which would account for over 70% of the journalists killed in the entire world in 2023. We also didn't mention all the civilians in Gaza who are also being detained en masse. Even Israeli newspapers admit that the majority of those detained and stripped in Gaza are not militants.

The South African ICJ case against Israel states, large numbers of Palestinian civilians, including children, have reportedly been arrested, blindfolded, forced to undress and remain outside in the cold weather before being forced onto trucks and taken to unknown locations. This includes medics and first responders, who have been detained and held incommunicado. These detentions aren't exactly what you would call due process either. According to the ICJ case, Palestinian civilians who have been detained

report inhumane conditions such as deprivation of food, water, shelter, and access to toilets. And evidence includes video footage showing bruises and burns on the bodies of detainees. So does Prime Minister Netanyahu really want to avoid targeting civilians? I don't know, man. Does it fucking matter what he wants?

He's doing it either way. And that's either because he's grossly incompetent or just plain lying. Anyway, I'm very calm. This was fun. Jimmy John's really missed out on this episode to sponsor it. So get on the phone, Jimmy John's.

But you know who didn't miss out? This next sponsor. Boy, boy did they not miss out. Hello, my sweet baby crabs. You're in the ad space now. Boy, did they not miss out. That means it means ball stuff, apparently. And MeUndies can help balls look their best with their contoured pouch and ball caddy. It's a caddy for your balls to make them look like a perfect pair of curled up kittens. And listen, maybe it's not the ball stuff you want. MeUndies has something for everyone.

Loungewear, hoodies, onesies, and yes, underwear. Plain old underwear. Or plain new underwear, if you will. Or underwear with wild designs, including new Valentine's Day prints. Hey! Also, they're just really comfortable underwear. I'm wearing two pairs right now. I couldn't get enough. I put them both on. For any of your spheres or other shapes, MeUndies is breathable and soft and stretchy,

no matter how many pairs you layer on. So check them out this Valentine's Day. Good things come in big packages at MeUndies. Get 20% off your first order plus free shipping at MeUndies.com slash more news. That's MeUndies.com slash more news for 20% off plus free shipping. MeUndies. Comfort from the outside in. For balls and other shapes too.

We're back. That's it for sponsors. Possibly forever. Win-win. So we were talking about something, something terrible. Murdering civilians in Palestine who really seem to be getting targeted or failing that, are simply not even considered in the quest to bomb Hamas

and anything vaguely near Hamas or anything that starts with the letter H. Also, if you try to evacuate, you die. But also, if you stay, you die. And don't you dare think about evacu-staying. So now it's time to talk about the bigger picture, starting with the next argument that Israel has to get the hostages back

and will do almost everything to get them back. Israel has to get the hostages back. Right, that's fair. So for the record, I also would like the hostages to get back to their families. And so when I bring up this point, I'm not questioning the importance of actually rescuing the hostages, but rather asking what the best way to do that is. We are going to do everything we can, everything we can to bring them back as quickly as possible. Again, I agree.

So let's think about this. Will heavy bombings and gunfire in the areas where hostages are kept actually help save the hostages? Unfortunately, no. The shoot people waving a white flag first, ask questions later philosophy means that the IDF has already killed at least three Israeli hostages who were in fact waving a white flag

and begging for help in Hebrew. Boy, they're really scared of ghosts, I guess. At least 32 other hostages are dead. Some likely died from their injuries sustained during their kidnapping, but the deaths of others are unconfirmed and has left many families of hostages worried the Israeli military campaign

is endangering the hostages lives. There have also been reports of Israeli military plans to flood tunnels in Gaza with seawater, which would not only contaminate Gaza soil, but wouldn't this potentially kill Israeli hostages? They claim they have intel on hostage locations and thus wouldn't drown them in this flooding plan. But then why did they shoot those three Israeli hostages?

Did their intel just happen to not cover those hostages? As we just saw in that last segment, the IDF hasn't been at all exact in their bombings and have shown little regard for civilian deaths. They also seem to believe Hamas is using people as proximity shields. So it would stand to reason that they would think they'd use the hostages as proximity shields, perhaps in these places that they are wildly bombing. This is all to say that they really don't seem that concerned with the hostages or really any collateral damage.

Recently, two Israeli soldiers being held hostage by Hamas were found dead by the IDF in an area of tunnels that they had recently attacked. According to the Jerusalem Post, a right-wing Israeli paper, an IDF investigation found that they were unaware of hostages in those tunnels. Meanwhile, the mother of one of the soldiers claims he was killed by the IDF itself

when they used poison gas to flood the tunnel. I know that it's important for there to be an investigation and not to only rely on the words of someone who's grieving their son, but a pathologist and an IDF investigation found no signs of gunshot wounds or trauma on the body, meaning that it is possible they died from suffocation related to a gas attack.

I'm not saying the IDF definitely killed their own man, but rather pointing out that they've been so reckless that they can't say for sure if they did or not. Like if I woke up from a bender and didn't know if it was my or someone else's turd in the waffle iron, that doesn't make me a responsible drinker. So if the attacks on Gaza are to get the hostages back,

they're doing a bad job at that. What seems more likely is that the hostages are being used as emotional leverage to exact revenge or even an ethnic cleansing. And if those hostages have to die, that's worth it, at least according to Israeli leadership, who seem to see these human lives as poker chips. This couldn't be made more clear by simply looking

at the seemingly most effective method of actually freeing the hostages. You may notice that more hostages were released during a ceasefire than anything else. 105 hostages were released in the prisoner exchange deal. Whereas three hostages were rescued by the IDF, three were also killed by the IDF. The point being, if you care about the hostages,

it seems like your best bet would be to call for a ceasefire. But do you condemn Hamas? And how? Some might argue that it is Hamas' fault in the first place that these hostages are in danger, and they would be correct, but that doesn't suddenly absolve the IDF of culpability when they claim this whole war is to get the hostages back

and then also kill or endanger the hostages in wanton attacks. Perhaps this sentiment was best stated by a former hostage who said, quote, "'I'm very afraid and very concerned "'that if you continue with this line of destroying Hamas, "'there won't be any hostages left to release.'" So maybe it's not about the hostages or saving civilians.

Maybe they don't care about that at all. But let's say for fun, that you're some kind of absolute serial killer who doesn't care about all of these deaths. And to you, it's all justified so long as we destroy the enemy. We have got to destroy completely Hamas's ability to ever do this again. If they think that by displaying the hostages or the hostages are going to help them in this respect, they're wrong. It's clear that they are an evil that absolutely needs to be truly defeated.

Okay, so this is the Jedi versus Empire, got it. Otherwise known as the ends justifying the means to make an omelet, gotta break eggs and poop in a waffle iron and so on. See, the argument here is that, sure, there are some civilian deaths, 60%, but that pales in comparison to letting Hamas win. It's like in the hit show House,

where they let Dr. Housey and House eat a patient or two because it sustains him in order to practice medicine. You get it. We can do a title for it. We must defeat Hamas no matter what. Let's start really simple. What does it mean to defeat or destroy an enemy? I'd reckon it means to create a situation

where the enemy doesn't exist anymore, right? Like going back to Star Wars, the object is to root out the evil at the core, which they did when the Emperor was killed in Return of the Jedi, and then they stopped making any sequels after that. Glad that's where the series ended. Nobody somehow returned.

And so while this is very basic, it stands to reason the same goal with Hamas. In order to defeat them, we must have no more of Hamas. So is what Israel doing actually accomplishing that goal? Well, to start, around 70% of Gaza's residences and half of its buildings have been damaged or destroyed. Meanwhile, 80% of Hamas's tunnel network is still intact. So, no.

Or maybe it is working, if the intent is to destroy Gaza to the point where people cannot live there. Given that entire neighborhoods have been flattened, including cemeteries, this seems more likely to be the case. They're also doing it extremely gleefully, like IDF soldiers are posting videos of them celebrating the destruction of Gaza.

That video was captioned, I stopped counting how many neighborhoods I've erased. So cool. And just like other war-crimey things, this is not new for the IDF. An HRC independent commission noted in July 2014 that, quote, the extensive devastation carried out by the IDF in Koozah, in particular, the raising of entire areas of the town by artillery fire, airstrikes, and bulldozers, indicates that the IDF carried out destructions that were not required by military necessity.'"

This destruction also doesn't keep their own soldiers safe, and in fact has killed soldiers. So it's not a defensive strategy. But is this blowing up of all of these buildings defeating Hamas? For instance, was demolishing the Palace of Justice, Gaza's Supreme Court, necessary to defeat Hamas? How about targeting

the Palestinian Legislative Council complex, or Gaza City's Central Archive building, or destroying Gaza's main public library, hundreds of educational facilities targeting every single one of the four universities in Gaza, the Al-Zafar Damari Mosque and Center for Manuscripts and Ancient Documents, the Orthodox Cultural Center, the Al-Qur'ara Cultural Museum, the Gaza Center for Culture and Arts, the Museum of Palestinian Heritage, the ancient port of Gaza, Anthedon Harbor, a 2000 year old Roman cemetery, the Museum of Palestinian Heritage, the ancient port of Gaza, Anthedon Harbor,

a 2000 year old Roman cemetery, the Rashad Al-Shuwa Cultural Center, 318 Muslim and Christian religious sites, including the Great Omari Mosque, once a fifth century Byzantine church. Also the Church of St. Porphyrius from 424 AD, necessary to defeat Hamas? Was there a defensive purpose

to destroying Gaza's central archives? Is there a defensive purpose to putting up religious iconography over demolished areas or coupling religious iconography with the graffiti ours now over a building? What about when the IDF was given coordinates of Gazan churches by US congressional staffers, was warned not to hit those churches,

and then did in fact hit some of those churches? Or when the IDF was given notice to avoid aid organizations and still bombed them? Was Hamas hiding inside 84-year-old Elam Farah from one of Gaza's oldest Christian families who was killed by an Israeli sniper outside Holy Family Church in Gaza City. Is it necessary to defeat Hamas

by leaving only one bakery left standing in all of Gaza? In the 2008 to 2009 war in Gaza, a UN investigation found that the disproportionate destruction of infrastructure was intentional and was designed to have inevitably dire consequences for the non-combatants in Gaza by having an overly broad framing of civilian infrastructure being used by militants.

Like if a militant buys bread at a bakery, does that mean the bakery is a military target? This same UN investigation concluded that in the 2008-2009 conflict, it is clear from evidence gathered by the mission that the destruction of food supply installations, water sanitation systems, concrete factories, and residential houses was the result of a deliberate and systematic policy by the Israeli armed forces. It was not carried out because those objects presented a military threat or opportunity,

but to make the daily process of living and dignified living more difficult for the civilian population, which sounds an awful lot like the current destruction in Gaza. This previous investigation even noted the vandalism that occurred. The systematic destruction appears also to have been an assault on the dignity of the people

in the vandalizing of houses when occupied and the way in which people were treated when their houses were entered. I suppose if there's another UN fact-finding mission into the current war, their jobs will be made somewhat easier by the fact that IDF soldiers are publishing their vandalism on TikTok and other social media sites, such as the soldier who spray painted a building

with the text, instead of erasing graffiti, let us erase Gaza. But do you condemn Hamas? Totes, bro, I condemn Hamas. And if, for example, I was looking to defeat Hamas, I would do everything I could to focus my efforts on Hamas and not the various citizens around Hamas. Not just out of like basic human compassion,

but because by destroying all of Gaza's culture, gleefully so, and shoving it in their faces, that sure seems like an easy way to make more Hamas. Director of the University of Chicago Project on Security and Threats, Professor Robert Pape puts it this way, "'Mass civilian punishment has not convinced Gaza's residents to stop supporting Hamas.

To the contrary, it has only heightened resentment among Palestinians.'" General Stanley McChrystal, a retired army general who once led special operations in Iraq, came up with an idea called insurgent math, that for every innocent person you kill, you create 10 new enemies. And this is just kind of common sense, right? If you invade and destroy the culture of a group of people,

they will very likely be inspired to join whatever force there is to resist that destruction. And I really can't stress this enough, 80% of Hamas's tunnel network is still intact. As of December, 2023, Israeli officials claimed that around 5,000 members of Hamas had been killed and that they were killing two civilians per one Hamas member which an IDF spokesperson described as being tremendously positive.

In all likelihood, the number of civilian deaths per Hamas member killed is higher. But even if this two to one ratio is correct, it's weird to frame this as tremendously positive. For every Hamas fighter killed, you kill two civilians, impacting their entire family, possibly orphaning their children. I know we like to pretend that only evil people

join violent groups like Hamas, but if your entire family gets killed in front of you and you have nothing left but trauma and anger, why wouldn't you join a militant group that offers revenge against those that killed your family? Understanding why people join militant groups isn't the same as condoning the actions of those groups. It's interesting that endless think pieces are devoted to,

say, understanding a Trump voter or someone who participated in January 6th, but it's taboo to try to understand why someone would want to join Hamas. And so if these bombings aren't actually doing anything to defeat Hamas, the only conclusion here is that the actual goal is to punish Palestine as a whole. You know, a punishment that is collective. It's not true. This rhetoric about

civilians not aware, not aware, not involved, it's absolutely not true. They could have risen up, they could have fought against that evil regime which took over Gaza in a coup d'etat. That was Israeli President Isaac Herzog saying that the people of Palestine are complicit because they didn't rise up against Hamas. So this is the next argument. The idea that Palestinians in Gaza support Hamas

or celebrated October 7th and therefore they deserve the collective punishment for what Hamas or celebrated October 7th, and therefore, they deserve the collective punishment for what Hamas has done. Palestinians deserve collective punishment. So first, do people in Gaza support Hamas? Some of them do. The last time there was a free and fair election in Gaza was in 2006, so half the current population of Gaza

wasn't even born yet. Hamas also won by a plurality, not majority. And since then, support for Hamas has fluctuated. In September, 2023, before the war began, 38% of Palestinians in Gaza supported Hamas. In December, following the start of the war, 42% of Palestinians in Gaza supported Hamas. According to pollster Khalil Shikaki

of Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, support for Hamas rises during periods of violence and drops when there is no conflict. Probably because those periods of violence involve Israel bombing the shit out of civilians, don't you know? But heck, let's say that an election was held today and a majority of Palestinians

voted for Hamas. Would they deserve collective punishment for the war crimes of Hamas? Do citizens deserve to be harmed for the crimes of their leaders? As an American, I'm gonna have to go ahead and say, dear God, no, no, no, please, no, my goodness. Do you know what American leaders have done?

No. Should we be bombed for the crimes of our country? In 1968, when the US Army committed the My Lai Massacre, had Vietnam had the capability, would it have been morally right for them to carpet bomb a random US neighborhood given that many people in the US supported the war? Or how about the people of Israel?

Do you think their support or dislike of what Netanyahu is doing warrants any punishment or hatred for them? Of course not. It doesn't really matter what a group of people think, they don't deserve to be killed in droves for it. Like, does someone deserve to die because they think the new Lion King

was better than the original? No, they should be investigated for it, but not killed. I've seen a lot of people point out that many people in Gaza don't support gay rights. And like, okay, that sucks. Doesn't mean we should kill them all, including the gay ones, right? Like, I don't need to like someone to not want to kill them.

61% of Mississippians don't support gay marriage. I still think everybody in that state should have rights and not be killed. But it really seems like there's a push to try and make this enough to justify a genocide. Like, did you also know it's okay to kill children in Gaza because they're taught to hate Jews from a young age? Right now, their children from the age,

since they born, from the age of two or three, we saw it in the kindergartens, we saw it in the school. They are being educated to slaughtered Jews. This is how they are being educated. With all due respect, with all due respect, let me just say this, whether that is true or not. It is true. You can't, you can't argue on the facts. We saw it in their schools. There are 10 or 15,000 people have died. Teaching children to be anti-Semitic is fucked up and bad. It's also not a reason to kill children. I mean, I guess dead children can't be bigots

or conversely, you could orphan them to punish them for learning to be hateful. They'll certainly learn to be less hateful when you murder their parents in front of them, I'm sure. It's like how Batman grew up to be well-adjusted and non-violent anyway. Yeah, not cool to teach your kids to hate, which also happens to be something

that's happening to Israeli children as well. In a video that was posted and then deleted by an Israeli news channel, children sing in reference to Gaza, "'Here the IDF is crossing the line "'to annihilate the swastika bearers. "'In another year, there will be nothing there. "'We will annihilate them all and then return

to plowing our fields. So, do those kids deserve to be bombed because they're also being taught to blindly categorize and hate a group of people and support annihilating them all? No, of course not. That's my entire point. You could tell me that everyone in Gaza hates me specifically and has like no Cody clubs, and I still wouldn't want to kill all of them. It's just a non-argument. All of the accusations and stories of sexual assault by Hamas,

even if all of them were true, I still don't want to kill all of them. Not because of the validity of these stories, but because the argument is ultimately trying to justify mass murder. But do you condemn Hamas? Let's keep going. Israel has a right to exist slash defend itself.

Oh yes, here we go. Going back to that Lincoln Park analogy you all remember and loved, we have now begun to play In The End. Hell, maybe we already did play that and we're back for NUM in the encore. And speaking of NUM, let's watch some many, many, many clips. Israel has a right to defend itself when you have thousands of rockets flying into your territory. President Biden and I have been clear. Israel has a right to defend itself. Israel has the right, indeed the obligation, to defend itself.

Israel has the perfect right to defend itself and must defend itself against these terrorists. Like any other country, Israel has the right to defend itself. These are times when we all need to be standing with Israel, giving them the tools they need to make sure they can defend themselves against these atrocities. It's catchy, I get it. 11 years ago, the IDF put out an entire video

explaining this as the justification for them to take, quote, necessary security measures to protect their people from terrorist attacks. Israel, like any other country, has the right and the obligation to protect its citizens from harm. Seems reasonable. If Canada, for example, started attacking America,

we'd fight back in order to protect our citizens. But what if, hypothetically, we like invaded Canada, we wanted their trees or something, and in doing so, reduced the country to just a small area of land, like Montreal, and then we took control over Montreal as well. If Montreal started fighting us after we pushed all of Canada into it, would we have the right to defend ourselves?

Is that even defense if we're the ones occupying them? No, perhaps? I'm not the only one who would say this. Bashir Abu Mene, professor at the University of Kent, argues that Israel violates every pillar of what self-defense means according to international law. Quote, self-defense does not apply to an occupying state's wars against those it occupies.

It is not relevant for Israel in relation to the Palestinians. Hey, good point. But that brings us to another question then. Is Israel actually occupying Gaza? Was my brilliant Montreal metaphor apt? Some will say no, because Israel removed its physical troops

from Gaza in 2005. But even though Israel withdrew settlements and boots on the ground, it retained its control over airspace, waters, all border crossings, access to water, electricity, management of population registry, and so on. According to B'Tselem, Israel controls all of Gaza's imports and exports,

and all movement of people in or out of Gaza. This means that if your building is bombed by, let's say Israel, and you want to rebuild, you would need to get permission from Israel to import concrete to rebuild, which Israel has severely restricted. It also means that hospital capabilities are limited by what supplies they have.

And if you have a medical condition that needs more care, you need to ask permission from Israel to leave Gaza to receive care. As laid out in the ICJ case and according to the WHO, from 2008 to 2022, 839 people died waiting for medical permits so they could receive treatment outside of Gaza. Meanwhile, Israel's blockade and buffer zone

has limited Gaza's ability to import and to produce its own food. The Eastern buffer zone is 24% of Gaza's land mass and has reduced farmland significantly according to a UN economics report. The naval blockade has also cut off Palestinians from being able to fish. The IDF also arrests fishermen

and confiscates fishing equipment. In the 2008 to 2009 war, Israel had also targeted food in Gaza. According to that UN fact-finding mission, quote, the Israeli armed forces unlawfully and wantonly attacked and destroyed, without military necessity, a number of food production facilities, including mills, land and greenhouses, drinking water installations, farms and animals. This

destruction was carried out with the purpose of denying sustenance to the civilian population. 95% of water from the only aquifer in Gaza was unfit for human consumption, according to the UN as documented in the ICJ court case. According to a 2021 article in Haaretz, Israel has prevented Gaza's water infrastructure from being repaired by banning raw materials and construction materials into the Gaza Strip.

Because remember, they get to decide what gets imported. So to answer the question, yeah, Israel doesn't technically occupy Palestine so much as it has locked it from the world and is controlling every aspect of their existence. You know, like if you kept a person in a room and controlled everything they ate or drank and who they talked to,

you aren't literally occupying that person's space. And so I guess Israel has a right to defend itself the way a person has a right to defend themselves from a person they've locked in a room and are preventing from leaving. A hostage, that's the word. Israel has a right to defend itself from their hostage, I guess.

Although they aren't even doing that. Like I'm fairly certain that killing 30,000 civilians and destroying most of the infrastructure is not necessary for self-defense. Self-defense isn't invading a people, but putting in protections to not be attacked. Like that's the definition of it. And not only is Israel more focused on offense than defense,

but seemingly ignoring measures that would have protected themselves. Did you know that before October 7th, Israel had intelligence that there would be an attack, but did not put their border on high alert? Now, I'm not trying to say that George Bush did it or something like that. This isn't a conspiracy.

That attack was Hamas. But considering that the IDF apparently had no response plan in place for that kind of attack, you have to wonder how concerned they actually are with defending themselves. This is according to a report looking at internal Israeli government documents, which outlined how soldiers were forced to use WhatsApp

groups and social media posts to even figure out what was happening that day. They had apparently reduced time spent spying on Hamas radio chatter and the initial teams sent were not only too small, but had no training for an invasion scenario. Boy, if Israel was concerned with defending themselves, you'd think they'd at least train their soldiers

how to deal with an invasion, AKA literally defending themselves. This is all to say that even if you don't see what Israel is doing as an invasion or occupation, the argument that Israel has a right to defend itself doesn't work if they aren't trying to do that. But do you condemn Hamas? Yeah, I do.

But here's a question. Does Benjamin Netanyahu condemn them? I ask because in the many years leading up to this Hamas attack, Netanyahu was approving payments between the Qatari government and Hamas. That doesn't seem like a good defense strategy.

It actually seems like he wants Hamas to exist as a reason to attack and wipe out Palestine. Then there's the other argument that Israel quote, "'has a right to exist.'" The thing is, individual people have a right to exist. Also a people, an ethnic or religious group, have a right to exist. Also, a people, an ethnic or religious group, have a right to exist. So of course, Israelis have a right to exist individually

and Jews have a right to exist as an ethnic group. But a state itself, a nation, doesn't necessarily have a right to exist under international law. Otherwise, you could invent a new nation, call it Cody-Bonerston, and just say it has a right to exist on top of an existing country and kick all those people out, which sounds weirdly familiar now that I think about it.

Even if a country, which is a thing, a concept, had some kind of right to exist, does that mean the country's rights supersede the rights of a group of people to exist? Ben Shapiro seems to think so, writing in 2003, "'If you believe that the Jewish state "'has a right to exist, "'then you must allow Israel to transfer the Palestinians "'and the Israeli Arabs from Judea,

"'Samaria, Gaza, and Israel proper. "'It's an ugly solution, but it is the only solution. The only solution, huh, Ben? Like some kind of ultimate or, I don't know, final solution for Palestinians? The Jewish writer who wrote this episode wants you to know that she gave me permission to tell this joke. I even got a little card.

This one Hitler joke passed, non-transferable. Also gives me free cookies at Subway. You know what else should be non-transferable? Palestinians. The point is, my country has a right to exist is neither a good moral nor legal argument to justify ethnic cleansing. And you know what?

It is ethnic cleansing, isn't it? And so now we've gotten to the darkest part of the episode, which was all flower dicks and puppy farts up until now, I'm sure, it's the end result of every argument, the big, terrible conclusion that we can't help but notice. Whoops, looks like you're trying to justify a genocide. So like, is this a genocide? Or should we just retire the word entirely?

South Africa has levied an official case accusing Israel of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, which has been heard in the International Court of Justice, AKA the Hague. Of course, genocide is a strong accusation, so we should define it. It was coined during the Holocaust in 1944 and was codified into international law in 1946.

Article two of the Genocide Convention defines it as the following. In the present convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as such. One, killing members of the group. Two, causing serious bodily or mental harm

to members of the group. Three, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. 4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group. 5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. To be clear, an act doesn't have to include every one of those points to be genocide, but rather any of those listed methods when done to intentionally destroy

or partially destroy an entire group. It's hard to argue that the Israeli military hasn't killed members of the group and isn't causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, but to be fair, Hamas did the same thing to Israelis on October 7th. So could that be described as a genocide?

According to the UN, proving intent is a key element of proving genocide. Quote, the intent is the most difficult element to determine. To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group. So if South Africa is to successfully

accuse Israel of genocide, first they have to prove that Israel is carrying out the physical actions of genocide, and then prove that they are intentionally doing so. So is what Israel doing in Gaza deliberate? I mean, they seem to think so. Israeli diplomats and leaders have privately been pushing for large numbers of Palestinians to be relocated to Egypt,

which is ethnic cleansing. There are also direct calls for genocide that have been made by Israeli officials, military or public figures that the South African ICJ court case helpfully compiled a list of. But also, we've just been on Twitter, which is apparently the new social media platform for advertising your intent to commit genocide.

It is the everything app after all. So first, Prime Minister Netanyahu has stated, "'This is a struggle between the children of light "'and the children of darkness, between humanity and the law of the jungle. He said that in a tweet, which he deleted, but also in real life with his mouth. He's also compared the war to the story of the destruction of Amalek in the Bible. You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible. And we do remember and we are fighting our brave troops and

combatants who are now in Gaza. For context, the biblical passage he references states, Now go, attack Amalek and prescribe all that belongs to him. Spare no one, but kill alike men and women, infants and sucklings, oxen and sheep, camels and asses. He's also backed up his Bible verse with policy, asking his advisor, Ron Dermer, to draft plans to quote, "'thin the population of Palestinians in Gaza to a minimum.'" Netanyahu isn't a lone genocidal wolf. Here's a statement by Israeli Minister of Defense,

Yoav Galant, literally calling them animals. Starting to sink defense has a different definition to them. That defense minister also announced that he had removed every restriction on the IDF. And in case none of this is explicit enough, he also stated that Gaza won't return to what it was before. There will be no Hamas. We will eliminate everything.

Yeah, that's a genocide, right? Sounds like a genocide, but maybe it counts as a right to defense if the stated goal is to eliminate everything, but it's said by somebody with defense in their title. I guess you could argue they are talking about wiping out Hamas specifically, except as we keep pointing out,

they are making no distinctions between Hamas and the citizens of Palestine. In fact, there are many more quotes specifically reflecting that. Israeli Minister for National Security, Itamar Ben-Gvir stated, "'To be clear, when we say that Hamas should be destroyed, "'it also means those who celebrate,

"'those who support, and those who hand out candy. "'They're all terrorists, and they should also be destroyed." Wow, dude really hates candy? The Israeli Minister of Energy and Infrastructure, Israel Katz tweeted, all the civilian population in Gaza is ordered to leave immediately. We will win.

They will not receive a drop of water or a single battery until they leave the world. And humanitarian aid to Gaza, no electrical switch will be turned on. No water hydrant will be opened and no fuel truck will enter until the Israeli abductees are returned home. Humanitarian for humanitarian

and no one will preach us morals. The Israeli minister of finance, Bezalel Smotrich, referenced the Nakba, saying, "'We need to deal a blow that hasn't been seen in 50 years "'and take down Gaza.'" Israeli Mayor David Azoulay stated, "'The whole Gaza Strip needs to be empty, flattened, "'just like in Auschwitz.'"

There are multiple opinion pieces in the Jerusalem Post advocating for expelling Palestinians to the Sinai Peninsula, a plan that Netanyahu is trying to pressure the US and Egypt into facilitating. The Israeli Minister of Heritage, Amakai Eliyahu, wrote on Facebook, quote, "'The north of the Gaza Strip, more beautiful than ever. "'Everything is blown up and flattened.

"'Simply a pleasure for the eyes. "'And that there is no such thing "'as uninvolved civilians in Gaza. An ex-Israeli justice minister said they should turn Khan Yunus into a football field. So yeah, they have a pretty good case that there is intent here, considering that they are just saying it many, many times.

Honestly, there are too many examples to go through in detail and keep this episode under two hours long. Israeli General Giora Eland said, "'Severe epidemics in the south of the strip "'will hasten victory and create such a huge pressure "'on Gaza that Gaza will become an area where people cannot live and Gaza will become a place where no human being can exist. Israeli army colonel and deputy head of Kogat,

Yogev Bar Shachet stated, "'This place will be a fallow land. "'They will not be able to live here.'" The Israeli minister of agriculture said, "'We are now actually rolling out the Gaza Nakba.'" Nakba refers to the displacement of Palestinians during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. The deputy speaker of the Knesset said,

"'Now we all have one common goal, "'erasing the Gaza Strip from the face of the earth.'" Member of the Knesset, Tali Gottlieb stated, "'Without hunger and thirst among the Gazan population, "'we will not be able to recruit collaborators.'" Another Knesset member, Ariel Kalner, called for a Nakba that will overshadow the Nakba of 48. There's more, but I'm hoping this is enough

to paint the picture. Look, it's a fucking genocide. And all the arguments we've outlined here really emphasize it when you break down how bullshit each of those arguments really is. They need Hamas to be this all encompassing evil that represents all of the people of Palestine. And for us to think that they are widely supported

and using civilians to protect them, to think that Hamas is under every school and every hospital and that our only hope is to wipe them out while simultaneously rescuing the hostages. That this is uncompromising darkness versus light, because if it isn't all of those things, then they are just doing a genocide. And the United States and other countries

are complicit in that genocide. We're bankrolling the genocide. And all the people supporting Israel online or wherever would have to face the shame of supporting that genocide as well. And so for a lot of people, they'd really rather this not be a genocide, which it totally is.

And genocide is and should be a hard line we draw. There's no justification for that. That's why all the arguments we analyze in this episode are trying to blur that line, or distract us, or deflect in some way. Because when it comes down to it, there's no defense for genocide. So you have to make things seem complicated

or something you just wouldn't understand, or keep pivoting by asking, but do you? Don't do it, keep pivoting by asking, But do you? Don't do it, don't do it. Condemn. Nah! Do you condemn Hamas? That's it!

Tidal Monkey, what is your deal today? Teehee! Aren't I a stinker? This episode was not watched by Jimmy Jones, by the way. Aren't I a stinker? This episode was not watched by Jimmy Jones, by the way. I'm pissing. Hi everybody, what a fun episode Thanks for watching Like and subscribe, do the YouTube stuff Check out our Patreon.com

Some more news if you want You can listen to our show, Even More News It's a podcast, we talk about this stuff Every week there You can also listen to this show As a podcast called Some More News Go to the podcast store Get all the podcasts for free,

because that's what podcasts are, and listen to those. We got merch, shop.somemorenews.com. Also click on the screen for other times we've talked about this topic. Those episodes exist. And you know what else? Do you?