The Dispatch Podcast - Debating the Israel-Hamas War | Interview: Mehdi Hasan

Episode Date: April 8, 2024

Mehdi Hasan, former MSNBC host and co-founder of the media outlet Zeteo, joins Jamie for a heated debate about Israel’s response to Hamas’ October 7 attack and the accusations that the IDF is committing war crimes. The Agenda: —Laying out the current situation in Gaza —The issue of proportionality in the use of force —Debating casualty numbers from the Gaza Health Ministry —The feasibility of a two-state solution —The question of war crimes —The United States’ role in the conflict Show Notes: —"Mansour Abbas Is an Arab and a Proud Israeli" Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to The Dispatch. I'm Jamie Weinstein. My guest today is, believe it or not, Medi Hassan. He is the co-founder of the recently founded media site Zateo. He previously worked for MSNBC where he hosted the Medi Hassan show on Peacock and was a regular commentator and guest anchor on the network. Before that, he hosted a TV show on Qatar's Al Jazeera Network. He is also author of the book, Win Every Argument, The Art of Debating, Persuading, and Public Speaking. It is a fiery podcast, as you can probably imagine. We focus mainly on what is going on in Israel and Gaza, but the goal here is to seek clarity where Medi believes, what his philosophy is, where I think he may have been propagandistic

in some of his arguments on Twitter and elsewhere. I think you'll find this conversation interesting and revealing. Without further ado, I give you Medi Hassan. Medi Hassan, welcome to the Dispatch podcast. Thank you for having. Well, Medi, I think we probably have a lot of disagreements on what is going over in the Middle East. But if we can get clarity, I think this podcast of where those differences are, I think that this podcast will be worth it. Let me just begin by asking you, if Medi Hassan was Prime Minister of Israel on October 7th,

how would he have responded to the attacks? So I've asked this question before recently on another show, and I'll say the same thing, first of all that I told the other interviewer, which is, if I was Benjamin Netanyahu on October the 7th and saw that horror go out on my watch with no military there in time, with a group that I'd help prop up for years, I'd have quit. I'd have some self-respect. I'd had some shame. And my first reaction as Prime Minister of Israel would to no longer be Prime Minister of Israel. I would have quit. That's my first answer. But let's just get to your question because I know you're actually asking about what should Israel's response

have been. You know, there's that old famous line, you know, how do you get from here to there? And I wouldn't have started from here. So first of all, I wouldn't want to be the Israeli government October the 7th because I probably wouldn't have allowed to get to this point, right, if I'd done the right thing because I believe there should have been peace and justice in the Middle East, which is the best way of avoiding violence. But look, does Israel go after the people who did this? Sure. I think it would be very hard for people to object to that.

Even the most hardcore support of the Palestinians would say, it's not surprising that the Israeli government wants to capture, kill, detain the people who massacred hundreds of their own civilians. That's not what Israel did, though. Remember, the first thing they did, Jamie, was to say we're cutting off all electricity, water, power. That was gallant. That was cats.

That was the instant responses on the 8th, 9th of October. And then it only got worse since then. I think, look, we can talk about October the 7th, and we should. What happened on October 7th was a tragedy, it was horrific, it was pure terror in the literal sense of that word, especially when you watch some of the footage. But we are nearly six months on from then, and I don't think you can still wave around October 7th as any kind of explanation, justification, or context for what we are seeing right now in Gaza, where we are literally starving people to death.

Your starting point is that Israel had the right to go after, Yeah, I get uncomfortable with words like right, but yes, it's the natural thing that any government would have done after being attacked. Well, let me just pause there for a second. Do you think Hamas leaders should be killed? Are they a type of threat that needs to be eliminated? I'm not a fan of killing people, Jamie, so I'll take the same position I took on bin Laden. I would like to see people put on trial and tried in court. I would like to have seen Osama bin Laden tried and put in prison for what he did. I didn't support the raid that Obama did then. I'm not a fan of targeted killings because they tend not to be targeted.

There tends to be collateral damage. You often get the wrong person. And it's not a form of justice I prefer. I know, I know in our lust for vengeance, understandable lust for vengeance, people support this stuff. I don't. I try and have a consistent moral worldview. I don't support the death penalty here in the United States.

So I think people who commit horrible crimes should be captured, tried, sent to prison. That's what I think should happen. And I think people who have committed war crimes, whether in Gaza or in Israel, should be tried at the international criminal car. I favor the ICC investigating both sides and holding people to account and putting out arrest warrants for anyone who's found, you know, found enough evidence that they've committed war crimes. I believe both sides have committed war crimes. Well, this is interesting, Madi, because I think we're getting into clarity much quicker than I imagined. If you opposed the bin Laden raid, which was very targeted, and you do believe Israel

has the right to go after Hamas, which hides within civilian populations and in tunnels, I'm kind of confused exactly what you would have supported or what you would have done that would have aligned to what you're saying that you think Israel, if you not has the right, but would naturally do. Let's do even more clarity, Jamie. I love this way. Let's get even clearer. A couple of things.

Number one, the Bidlardin raids, since you want to revisit the targeting. The issue about Bidlard is not whether it was targeted on. The issue is, does the United States have the right to go around the world killing its enemies? I'm in favor of that if everyone else has that right, Jamie. There are a bunch of Cuban, there are a bunch of Cubans who are accused of carrying out horrible crimes against Cuba, against civilian airliners living in Florida. Do you support the Cuban government's right to go in in the middle of the night and kill

them? Because if you don't, then you're not being morally consistent. So I'm in favor of, if everyone has the right to kill people abroad, then fine. Or nobody. Not the U.S. doesn't get a special exception. That's my position in terms of international law and just basic common sense and morality. But do you think all governments are equal, equal morally? I think international law treats all.

I think international law treats all governments equally. If you don't follow international law, which is what's happening for the last six months, we're tearing up the post-1945 settlement that we all agreed on, global south and west, then you have the law of the jungle, the law of the fittest, the strongest. There's no way you can stop Russia from Putin from assassinating his enemies because he has the power to do it. Either you have laws that bind everyone, dictatorships and democracies, or you say might is right. And I prefer the first worldview. They're both horrible, but I think the first worldview is the lesser of two evils.

just on Hamas. Look, I'm not a military strategist, Jamie. If you want me to lay out exactly what special forces raids would have been involved to get Yahya Sinwa and others, I can't answer you. What I can say is the burden is actually not on me to come up with a strategy for Israel to capture or kill the leaders of Hamas. The burden is on Israel to follow international law. And let's get some clarity. I think we can both agree they haven't been following international law for the past six months. They've been indiscriminately killing people. they have been violating all sorts of international laws, Geneva Convention's basic rules on proportionality.

The UK government, run by conservatives, allies of Israel, is now saying that they are in breach of international law. The head of the Conservative Foreign Relations Committee of the United Kingdom, not a lefty dove, is saying we can no longer sell weapons to Israel. So it's not controversial here that Israel is at best, probably violating international law, in my view, definitely. So my position, Jamie, therefore, is actually I don't need to come up with what the Israeli strategy should have been.

I only need to see that whatever Israel did had to be in accordance with international law. And what they've done is not. And they haven't gone after Hamas, Jamie. They've killed innocent people. They've killed kids. They've killed people who had nothing to do with Hamas. They've killed people carrying white flags. A grandmother who had nothing to do with Hamas carrying a white flag with her grandchild killed.

We're going to get into the numbers. Just for the record, I don't agree with you. I wasn't talking about numbers. I gave specific cases of people we saw on camera. I do disagree with you on international law. I don't want to get bogged down there, both in the application with Israel. and what international law is. Quickly, I'm fine for us to disagree on international law,

but you don't disagree that the majority of the world right now thinks Israel is violating the sociality. The British government is not a lefty, you know, African, you know, anti-colonial government. It's a conservative government. I acknowledge the world has generally not been favorable to Israel. But so if that, if that's what you're saying, I acknowledge the UN often has, often has.

David Cameron, David Cameron is a long-standing supporter of Israel. I don't want to get bogged down on that. if that's what he, I haven't seen a statement. If that's what he says, that's what he says. It's what his foreign ministry has given legal advice on. I guess I want to go back to this here. I guess you say you're not a military strategist. I've heard this before in arguments.

Israel has the right to go after Hamas, but Hamas has made it. I didn't say Israel had the right to go after Hamas. Understandable. You don't believe in, and they have the right. But it was understandable why a government would do that. But that I don't believe or not. We have to clear, again, clarity, what are our terms, right where, for example. They don't have the right to go and, you know, occupiers have

limited rights and occupied territory, Jamie, as you know. But if Hamas has deliberately embedded itself in tunnels underground where it's very difficult to get. Just to be clear, what does deliberately embedded mean since we're talking terms? I always hear this phrase deliberately embedded. What does that mean? It means that they intentionally created a large tunnel system under civilian areas, and they often hide weapons in civilian targets.

But I don't support them doing that, but I just have a question. Where should they be? If they shouldn't be in the tunnels, where should they be in your view? I would say that you probably shouldn't put tunnels under a hospital if you don't want the hospital to become a military target. But where should they put the tunnels? No, no, I just need to be clear. Because you said they deliberately embed. You said this is about clarity.

I just need to be clear. I don't think they should put them anywhere. I think they... Where should Hamas be in Gaza? Because there's civilians everywhere in Gaza. Do you want them to stand in a football field and open spaces and say, we're over here? No, I think they should have used the money to create prosperity in Gaza, not Timble in Tongues. I agree.

We agree on that. I'm asking right now, when you say deliberately embedded, what's the old? alternative to deliberately embedding. This is an interview. So let me ask you, under your standard, under your standard, if China, you know, made a warship and called it a hospital, put some civilians there, and they went to go to Taiwan after Taiwan, I mean, Taiwan should just surrender because there's no way for them to attack these warships that they're being called hospitals without, in your view, violating

international law. I mean, it's a crap analogy, Jamie, with respect. Nobody's claiming that Hamas built hospitals as warships. The argument is, are they using hospitals to hide in or hide under? Nobody disputes those are hospitals. Have you been to those hospitals? My friend just came back from a hospital in Gaza. He saw kids being brought in with gunshot wounds to their head. He saw people having operations without anesthetic. The WHO has pointed out that the vast majority of health care facilities in Gaza have been damaged or destroyed. Dozens of American and Canadian and British doctors have gone out. White people, Jamie. Not just brown Muslims. We're not going to play the race game there, Hermetti.

No, no, no. I need to finish my sentence. Then you can come back in. They've all gone out and said hospitals, healthcare facilities have been destroyed, have been damaged. For you to claim that Hamas built a hospital pretending it's a military base is an absurd analogy. So your China analogy is one of the worst I've ever heard. I said they built it under hospitals and there are fighters within it. We can play the take back. You said China builds a warship, calls it a hospital. That is not what anyone has said Hamas has done in Gaza. No one says Hamas built a hospital and pretended it was a military base pretending. it was a hospital. Your analogy just doesn't work. I think it does. It doesn't make a difference.

If the warship, if the warship, okay, if the warship was a hospital, you're saying that there's no right for this room to go after. It's not a war ship and does it. Your analogy doesn't work. There's not how much military base masquerading as a hospital. Just not. Well, I think it does, but let's continue on. Even the Washington posted investigation of Schiffen found no bunker. I've seen the video. Have you seen the video, the Benjamin Netanyo put out of the Bond villain Lair-Undal Shipper? Have we found that yet? They just did two, two-week operation in Shifa. By the way, after they cleared it a few months ago. Who was fighting in that operation? Who was fighting against the Israel? We don't know.

You don't know. If you don't know, we don't know, because Israelis said they killed, Naftali Bennett said they killed not a single civilian. And yet we've seen dozens of bodies, including children. Have you seen the footage? Horrific. But Medi, you just admitted that it was a two week fight against Shepa Haasphro. No, no, no, no, no. Because you're not being clear again. What I said was, have we found the base, the command and control HQ under Shifa, that Benjamin Netanyahu tweeted a video. Did you see the video? We can play the video if you have it. there's a video, it looks like a bundle. It's very elaborate military base. That would be equivalent to your China analogy. Who do you think was fighting the Israelis for two weeks in Al-Shefa

Hospital? This is, again, not the first fight there, the second fight. Who do you think was fighting the Israelis for two weeks in Al-Shefa hospital? I'm assuming if they're claiming they were fighting militants, those would have been Hamas militants. But why would I believe anything the Israelis say? Unlike you, I learned my lesson. If the Israelis lie every time, You're not going to believe them. By the way, they told us Hamas was gone from the hospital. But now Hamas is back. Make your mind up, Jamie. Well, I'm confused why that would be confused. So they might have removed Hamas. Why? They cleared the hospital a month or two ago. How is Hamas back at the hospital?

I don't think we'd say that would be a failure in war. If that once you clear it, they come back. I'm glad we agree that Israel's failing in its war. At least we can find some agreement in this conversation. No, well, that would be a failure not to control the territory and have them come back. But I think we now agree that Hamas militants in at least the same. Second battle. I've never, I've never disputed that Hamas militants may, and probably did, use civilian areas, to fight from.

That's why I think Hamas should be investigated for war crimes by the ICC, like the Israelis. That doesn't justify the wholesale destruction of Gaza's healthcare sector, the targeting of doctors and nurses, people in doctors' jackets being shot by snipers. I don't think snipers get to shoot doctors and nurses inside hospitals. We're going to disagree on whether that happens or not, Maddie. You can dispute all the testimony because it's not convenient, but that's the testimony. Let's go to the numbers, Medi. You've tweeted several times about the death toll in Gaza.

January 24th, as an example, it would have cost Biden nothing whatsoever to mention the 24,000 Palestinian dead, even in passing February 5th. They were unable to kill Hamas leadership in the first four months of the war, but managed to kill 25,000 Palestinians Gaza. He, Biden, says, and this is February 22nd, he isn't mincing words, and then goes on to ignore the fact that it's Israel that has killed 28,000 plus Palestine in American bombs. I'm not asking you about the accuracy of the numbers or the composition of the numbers. But isn't it propagandistic to put out those numbers and not mention that at least

thousands of those numbers are Hamas fighters? So it's interesting. You should say that. Let me just do a nice shameless plug for Zateo, which is a new media company that I'm currently launching right now. And if the dispatch viewers and listeners want to check it out at Zateo.com, shameless plug over. For Zateo, I actually wrote a piece last week, Jamie, pointing out that Netanyahu says, Benjamin Netanyahu told Billed that he believes 13,000 Hamas terrorists have been killed. I don't believe that number for a second, but that's Netanyahu's number, right? And he believes that the Israelis have a one to one and a half ratio of killing civilian to combatant, which he's very proud of. If we take those numbers at face value, which I don't, but just for the sake of argument, let's say he's right.

That means that between 13,000 and 19.5,000 civilians have been killed in five months. those are shockingly high numbers and they're not that far off from the numbers that the Palestinian Health Ministry is giving out. They're not numbers that I'm sure you want to defend and they're not numbers that actually fit the Israeli narrative in any shape or form. So no, I don't think

it's wrong, and I've given Benjamin Nand. I literally wrote an email that went out to tens of thousands subscribers saying this is the Israeli position on the numbers. I've never disputed that Israel has different numbers, but Israel lies James, this is the problem. I trust the Israeli military as much as I trust police forces after they shoot an unarmed black man at a light

and say he was armed. Well, Medea, you're anticipating my next question. I think I was asking previous to a recent tweet, which must have gone out with the same article that you mentioned on Ziteo. The previous times, you didn't mention that Hamas was killed. But you did tweet at the end of March, like you just said, to all those in the U.S. media and politics who spent the last month questioning the Hamas health ministry casually figures and questioning the number of civilian deaths in Gaza, here's Benjamin Netanyahu admitting that Israel has killed between 13 and 19,000 civilians. I don't want to ask you about the accuracy of either the Israeli number or the Hamas figure or the composition of it. But we did have last week on the podcast, John Spencer, who is at West Point. He's the chair of modern urban warfare studies. He was written books on modern warfare studies. And he said if those numbers are accurate, that would be one of the best combatant to non-combatant

ratios in modern warfare history. It would be historical. The battle of Mosul was much higher. And you mentioned that this all comes on the most difficult urban warfare setting that he's ever seen. So I'm just interested in how you would respond to that. So not a fan of John Spencer. I think he's a propagandist. Why aren't you a fan, though?

Let's just take, because I think he's a propagandist, but let's just take the numbers you mentioned. You gave his credential. You gave his credential. Let me respond. Phil Clay, who served in Mosul, who served in Iraq, wrote an award-winning writer, as you know, just wrote a very long piece for the Atlantic, that well-known anti-Israeli. journal run by an anti-Israeli editor. And he wrote a very long piece in which he's pointed out that the numbers with Mosul, actually the opposite. His numbers, I haven't memorized them, but your readers

can go check out the piece, actually show that Israel's rate of killing is much higher than America's. And America, by the way, I was a huge critic of America's bombing in Mosul, so it's not like I was some great defender of what America did Iraq. I wasn't a fan of what America did in Iraq with ISIS either. They were over the top in Mosul in terms of destruction. But even America's destruction in Mosul under Obama and then Trump doesn't come anywhere close to what the Israelis have done in Gaza. And he has the statistics to show that. If you talk to someone like Andrew Gilmore, former UN Assistant and Secretary General of Human Rights, he says the kill rate in Gaza is higher than any conflict since Rwanda in the mid-1990s. Oxfam points out that the daily death rate

in Gaza is higher than any conflict of the 21st century. And as for the ratio, well, I don't believe the ratio. It's nonsensical. As I pointed out in that Zateo piece, if you were to believe Netanyahu's one-to-one ratio, you basically have to believe that every single male, man and boy, who was killed by Israel, was a Hamas fighter, which. of course, I don't believe. Yeah, well, I think the ratio is one to one to one and a half, not one to one. Even if it's one to one and a half, you have to say pretty much almost every man is a terrorist. And again, that's a very racist worldview, which we've imported into America now

when we talk about military age males at our southern border. No, not every Palestinian man is a terrorist, too. Yeah, well, I didn't say that, so, uh, Maddie. That's the implication of believing John Spencer's numbers. So whether you said... No, no, it's not. There are debates about whether the... 70% of the dead are women and children.

Now I'm explaining to you that there is a question of the composition of the numbers of Hamas. causes statistics, which I didn't want to get into. Not from anyone seriously. Israeli intelligence believes those numbers, so. Not long ago, I saw someone go through a sudden loss, and it was a stark reminder of how quickly life can change and why protecting the people you love is so important. Knowing you can take steps to help protect your loved ones

and give them that extra layer of security brings real peace of mind. The truth is the consequences of not having life insurance can be serious. That kind of financial strain, on top of everything else, is why life insurance indeed matters. Ethos is an online platform that makes getting life insurance fast and easy to protect your family's future in minutes, not months. Ethos keeps it simple. It's 100% online, no medical exam, just a few health questions. You can get a quote in as little as 10 minutes, same-day coverage and policies starting at about two bucks a day, build monthly, with options up to $3 million in coverage. With a 4.8 out of five-star rating on trust pilot and thousands of

families already applying through ethos, it builds trust. Protect your family with life insurance from ethos. Get your free quote at ethos.com slash dispatch. That's ETHOS.com slash dispatch. Application times may vary. Rates may vary. This episode is brought to you by Squarespace. Squarespace is the platform that helps you create a polished professional home online. Whether you're building a site for your business, you're writing, or a new project, Squarespace brings everything together in one place. With Squarespace's cutting-edge design tools, you can launch a website that looks sharp from day one. Use one of their award-winning templates or try the new Blueprint AI, which tailors a site for you based on your goals and style.

It's quick, intuitive, and requires zero coding experience. You can also tap into built-in analytics and see who's engaging with your site and email campaigns to stay connected with subscribers or clients. And Squarespace goes beyond design. You can offer services, book appointments, and receive, payments directly through your site. It's a single hub for managing your work and reaching your audience without having to piece together a bunch of different tools. All seamlessly integrated. Go to Squarespace.com slash dispatch for a free trial. And when you're ready to launch,

use offer code dispatch to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain. Why is John Spencer, who is at West Point, the head of their urban warfare institute, a propagandist? What makes you question his credentials? Okay, let's take it back. Let's apologize to John Spencer. I don't know personally, I think he's blocked me on Twitter. I'd love to read more of this stuff. I think people like him, let's make a more accurate point, engage in propaganda on behalf of Israel.

There's a guy in England who does the same, a former British colonel. The reality is, Jamie, that the vast number of people, including in the U.S. government right now, including Lloyd Austin, the defense secretary, are all warning that what's happening is disproportionate. Military strategies from across the world, from Spain, Belgium, Canada, the United Kingdom. What do you mean by disproportionate? What do you mean by disproportionate? Well, here's just a random, that many statistics, I already gave you one, a higher kill rate than since Rwanda. But let me give you another one. More buildings, more residential buildings destroyed in Gaza than in Dresden in World War II. according to Wall Street Journal's own numbers. Again, very famously anti-Israeli newspaper run by an anti-Israeli billionaire.

Their piece, their reporting shows that a higher number of residential buildings damage in just a few months. You see the destruction coming out of Gaza? Is that proportionate in your... I mean, it's worse than anything we saw in Syria or Ukraine. I'm not sure how you can defend this, Jamie. When you use the term disproportionality, it sounds like you're using the term proportionality in the laws of war,

which we had Jeremy Rapkin, my former advisor, at Cornell on, who's an expert in a national law. And he pointed out that proportionality is usually proportional to the threat. And the question is, what do you view as the threat of Hamas? What is the goal of Hamas? I mean, the threat of Hamas is they killed, what, 1,200 people on October the 7th, and in response Israel killed, and in the response, Israel killed 300 times as many people. So, yeah.

What is their goal? What is Hamas's goal? What is the goal of Hamas? Why don't you ask them? I'm not Hamas. Well, you're talking about it. I mean, that matters in proportionality. the goal of the enemy.

I mean, look, Hamas, Hamas obviously sees themselves as an Islamic resistance group, fighting against occupation, fighting against Israel, fighting against Zionism. We can have a debate about whether there are moderate parts of Hamas

and extreme parts of Hamas. If you go back through history, there are multiple examples where Hamas said, we will do a hoodner, we will do a treaty, and there were many reasons why that didn't happen.

When Jimmy Carter was talking to Hamas back in the 2000s and the 90s, there was arguments at the time from people like Henry Siegman, very famous American Jewish activists saying, we can do a deal with these people, just like you do deals with terrorist groups, the IRA. I'm from the UK, as you know. There was a long period of time where no one thought you could do a deal with the IRA or its political arm, Sinn Féin. And in the end, we did. And Sinn Féin is about to run the whole down thing. Of course, the ANC is the obvious example that's often raised. Hamas, of course, is much more violent than both those groups, clearly. But there is arguments that you can do deals with them. Their goal right now, of course, on October 7th, was to kill Israelis and take hostages and get people freed from Palestine. Indian prisons. And also, some would argue, trying to disrupt the Saudi-Israel rapprochement. Maybe. I don't know enough about the Hamas strategic internal thinking, but that might have been a factor as well, I suspect. Do you think the strategic aim to survive is to try to

get Israel to kill as many civilians as possible, to get the international community to stop them? And Israel's doing it, because Israel's dumb. Just like we did it off to 9-11. I think they're trying to get Hamas. But let me ask you this. No, they're not. Just to be clear, Jamie. Who's not trying? We did the same thing off the line level. We went into Bin Laden's trap in Afghanistan. Who's trying, who's not trying to get Hamas?

You're saying Israel's not trying to get Hamas. Well, it depends on which we're talking about Israel, country, government, ministers, be specific. Well, the Israel government. I mean, the Israeli government contains many people who are not going after Hamas. They are trying to go after the Gaza and population. They are trying to depopulate Gaza. The people who have power. The people who, this is deflection, Medi.

The people have power. You've asked me a question. You're deflecting. No, no, no, no, no, you're deflecting. Not Ben Gavir. What is the Israel? Israel, the government, who, the war, the war cabinet. Why do we dismiss Ben-Gavir?

He's not controlling the war, Gaza. He wants me to ignore the national security minister of Israel. Why would I do that? He's not controlling policy. He's not controlling policy. Jamie, okay, we've got to take a break. Who's handing out weapons to settle is in the West Bank right now to kill innocent Palestinian?

No, Hamas is in the West Bank. Hamas doesn't run the West Bank. Mehdi, I simply asked you. You need to retract the statement and he doesn't control policy. That's not true. He does not control the war policy towards Gaza. That is true. But he does control the killing of Palestinians, yes or no?

Yeah, he shouldn't be in government. He should never have been there because of coalition government. He's there. But Jamie, this is not your government. He is in government. Whether you want him or not. It is the question. You ask me who is not going after Hamas?

Mehdi, I know you're very talented at this. He said, what is Israel's strategy in Gaza? You said, they're not going after Hamas. You said, who in Israel? The random guy in the street. Who in Israel are you talking about? When I mentioned Israel, I'm talking about the war cabinet who controls the military. Are they going after Hamas or not? You said they weren't, and then you

asked me, who am I talking about? Okay. So you adding in Gaza, you said, are Israel going after Hamas. I don't talk about Palestine as if it's just Gaza. There are occupied Palestinian territories. Record number of Palestinians have been killed in the West Bank since October. So I know you don't want to talk about that. And Ben-Givir does control policy. He's handing out weapons, paid for by us, to settlers who are killing innocent Palestinians. I'm not just going to turn a blind eye to that because you don't like Ben-Gavir. I'm glad we agree we both don't like Ben-Gabir. But he exists. He has power over policy, just factually. In terms of going after Hamas in Gaza, are they bombing and killing Hamas fighters? Yes, but is that the strategy? Is that the sole aim? No,

because then you wouldn't be depopulating in Gaza. You wouldn't be talking about ethnic cleansing. You wouldn't be talking about moving to the side. What's the aim? What's the aim then, Medi? I think the aim is to fundamentally depopulate Gaza, yes. I think it's to, I think it's to make it's unlivable. I think it's to make Gaza unlivable. I'm confused, though, because earlier you said you're not a war strategist. You don't know how you would go after Hamas. And now you're saying what Israel doing is going after Hamas isn't clearly going the right way to go after Hamas. I said I don't know what I would have done to get Hamas in the right way. What I did also add, Jamie, we play the tapeback, is everyone in the world pretty much agrees this is not the right way. Not only is it not the white way

in terms of international law and military strategy, but let me ask you this. Do you think Hamas is going to emerge or weaker? Hold on. Let me finish your sentence. do you think Hamas is going to emerge weaker or stronger from this conflict? Do you think killing 30,000 people has been a boost to Hamas? Or has it hindered Hamas? I think you've got more Gazans who are going to join Hamas or a version of Hamas in the years to come. And by the way, you know who agrees with me? Ami Ayelon, former head of Shinbet, Shlomo Brom, former Israeli national security guy. People are not stupid. Even Israeli hawks are saying this strategy will backfire in the long way. I think we don't know what will happen at the end. I think it somewhat

depends on Hamas's strategy to get the world for Israel to stop going after it. I think we know that there are tens of thousands of orphans in Gaza who are not going to grow up loving Israel, Jamie. And if you think that, you're deluded. But I do think it's incumbent on people who say Israel doesn't have the right strategy to go after Hamas, for someone to come up with a strategy that would actually go after Hamas. That would be different. Actually, we have to agree to to disagree. I'm a Hippocratic in my worldview. I say, first, do no harm. If somebody comes into my house and, God forbid, attacks my children and my wife, and I say, I'm going to go after them to get revenge. Many people would say, you have a right to do that. But I

couldn't go out and kill everyone in the street while looking for them, and you wouldn't defend me doing that. Yeah, except there's a difference on a state level where the state's obligation is to protect it. As you, I don't agree with that. I believe in morality. I apply morality to states. You don't believe that there's a difference between what an individual can do to protect themselves and what a state must do in order to defend its citizens. In the sense of both being bound by laws, no, I'm bound by laws as a citizen of the United States. Israel is bound by laws as a member of the international community and a member of the United Nations.

You can wish away the UN and international law as much as you want, but it exists. And by the way, be careful, Israel and supporters of Israel. You tear down the entire international architecture. You say that we're allowed to kill whoever we like because we were killed. Guess what? It'll come back and slap you in the face.

Tomorrow, the other side will say, well, we're doing the same thing. How are you going to have any moral high ground against Hamas? Hamas will say, if you can kill all of us because we killed you, then we can kill all of you because you killed us. It's a never-ending cycle of violent music cliché. Again, Nedi, I'll refer back to John Spencer at West Point, who says he's not violating the laws and norms that you're saying, and in fact is setting a new standard for going after Hamas.

And I guess international court of justice, the United Nations, General Assembly, multiple human rights groups, multiple humanitarian aid agencies, the British foreign ministry, multiple U.S. officials, multiple members of Congress all disagree with Professor John Spencer. Yes. And also the UN used to do about 30 resolutions against Israel to every one it would do against Syria or North Korea and elsewhere. The world doesn't like Israel. And the U.S. protects Israel in a way, it protects no other country. So it balances out, Jamie.

In a column in The Guardian, you said that Biden had the ability to stop what is going on in Gaza if he, and stop weapons going to Israel. I guess my question is, do you think Biden is a war criminal for not stopping weapons going towards Israel in what you consider a genocide? That is a good question. And by the way, that Guardian piece feels very vincent. indicated this week because he had a chat with Netanyahu and immediately Netanyahu opened a crossing, which again reminds us that American president does have a lot of power and leverage over the

Israeli government if they choose to use it. Look, it's a great question. I think that I interviewed Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur for the Occupied Palestinian Territus someone, I'm sure you're not a fan of, and she made the point that Biden could be liable for war crimes one day. I'm not an international lawyer just like I'm not a military strategist. Is he a war criminal? I don't know. He's certainly complicit in what looked like war crimes in Gaza. If, as every human rights group says, Israel is committing what looked like clear war crimes in Gaza, bombing refugee camps, killing people who are unarmed, killing children disproportionately irate, then he's providing the weaponry, and to use an analogy again

from everyday life, if I give my friend a knowingly keep selling guns to criminals and they keep carrying it out, you're implicated in that crime. So I think he's certainly got a case to answer in terms of complicity in war crimes and genocide. And I think that he's going to have to worry about that both in terms of him and his maker, both in terms of him and international law and of course the ballot box in November where a lot of people who otherwise liked Biden and defendant like I did up until October 7

they're saying, how can we vote for this guy who has so much blood on his hands? Is there any American president, at least living American president that you don't think is potentially guilty of war crimes? I think sadly the history of post-war U.S. foreign policy is that every president has either committed or been complicit in war crimes around the world.

Even poor old Jimmy Carter, who I'm a big fan of, you know, supported the Shah of Iran at some of the most brutal periods and we can go through different foreign policy periods. I think I think Noam Chomsky was asked this one, and I think he glibly said Gerald Ford might be one, who probably didn't get involved in anything specifically during his presidency, at least. Maybe Jimmy Carter. Sadly, look, it's not about individuals.

I know we can personalize this to American presidents. The reality is we have an American government, a military industrial complex, which is complicit in horrible crimes against humanity around the world. And, I mean, it's your interview, but I'd love to turn around and say, do you think there's a president who hasn't done horrible things around the world who hasn't been complicit in the killing of innocent people. It's hard to think of it. Reagan, Bush, Obama, drone strike. I mean, it's very hard, sadly. And this is why, you know,

I'm doing what I'm doing at Zateo, is to try and cast a light on things we don't really talk about in our political system or our media, which is our country is complicit in horrible crimes around the world. The rest of the world knows it, but most Americans aren't aware of what's being done in our name and wouldn't support it if they did. What American wars in the last hundred years do you think were just? Great question. I feel like I'm in a Chomsky hot seat right now. I think I'm going to say World War II, was it carried out in a just way? I mean, you know, without getting into kind of undergraduate level philosophy, you know, there is a distinction between just cause and just means and how you fight the war versus why you fought the war. I think World War II was a very

just cause defeating Hitler. Do I agree with the new king of Hiroshima Nagasaki? No, I think those were war crimes. I think they were, you know, and the firebombing of Dresden, which the Israelis now keep citing us, see, we can do it too. Well, those were war crimes. Don't copy war. Was that genocide in your mind? That's a good question. I think a case where we didn't have the genocide convention in the same way at the time, but if you look at some of the things that some of the generals, British and American generals were saying at the time, they were quite genocidal statements. Was it genocide? Yeah, it's a good question. I definitely think there's a case to have a debate about it. If you're, if you're wiping out entire populations, again, intent is important, right? Jamie, this is what

we've been arguing about for the last few months. That's what the ICJ looked at. I would need to know what was the intent. I don't think FDR's intent was to wipe out Japan. I think his intent, there's a big debate, as you know, about Hiroshima Nagasaki, which historians are having. One of the arguments was nuke was dropped not to destroy Japan or defeat Japan, but to show the Soviet Union what we could do, right? There's a big debate about strategist and historians for another day. I wrote about it in grad school in your home country of London at LSE. So I am well aware of the debate. So there's part of those debates, neither of us are experts on it, but I'm just saying in that case, you could probably argue that was multiple intents going on. There's not a clear,

it's not FDR woke up and said, I want to wipe out the Japanese. Unfortunately, many Israeli officials wake up every day and say, let's wipe out Gaza, which I know you think they will have no power, but they do. So I guess, and I think this is the clarity that I, that is good and I was hoping to achieve here. I guess I just want you to respond to some of the things that I'm taking away, is that Israel, you wouldn't say had the right to go after Hamas after October 7th, but you understand that most governments would go after Hamas after October 7. You don't know how they should do it that could minimize civilians, because you're not a military strategist. But you also didn't like how America went after Osama bin Laden, which was

rather targeted because they crossed boundaries that weren't theirs to go into Pakistan to do it. While the just cause of Nazi to fight the Nazis was there, the way that America went about it could arguably, depending on what Horstorians say, be war crimes and that might be genocidal as well. I'm uncertain how to navigate as a leader without being a war criminal when you're trying to fight back against people who are trying to kill you. Okay, so there's a lot there, and we've got not that much time left, but let me just be clarified, because I don't want, I know what Fox News will take away from this interview and put us their headline. I'm not saying the United States and the UK were genocidal during World War II. I said, I wouldn't have supported

war crimes like the dropping of nukes on Nagasaki and Hiroshima and Dresden. You said, could that be seen as genocide. I said the genocide convention didn't exist then. We'd have to talk about intent. I don't know enough about it, but I don't know about genocidal intent from FDR or Churchill. So that's one thing. Let's park World War II before we get into a whole World War II thing. To go back to your Hamas point, I didn't say I don't know how to do it without minimising against. It's not what I said at all. I know how they can minimize civilian casualties. Stop killing civilians deliberately. I know how you can defeat Hamas without killing civilians. Don't kill the grandmother who has a white flag. Don't kill the father who has a white flag. Don't kill Israeli hostages who have white flags.

don't kill the World Central Kitchen staff who are traveling in a World Central Kitchen car. That's not hard actually, Jamie. I'm surely you agree with me that they shouldn't be killing those people I just... But that didn't explain how to get Hamas. But you just said minimize civilian casualties. Can we agree that you can get Hamas

without killing the people I just mentioned? I don't know. I don't know. Obviously, Israel would prefer... You're saying getting Hamas because of killing the World Central Kitchen staff. No, no. I'm saying that within wars that are difficult like this,

civilians die and horrible things happen. I mean, I have a list here. That doesn't mean you have to justify them, Jamie. I'm sure Bashar al-Assad. I'm sure Bashar al-Assad says the same thing as you, Jamie. Wars, horrible things happen. And we say, no, you killed innocents deliberately. But I'm not stupid and I know that Bashar deliberately killed innocence. You're not stupid. You're just biased. You say Israel gets a special treatment. Assad Putin are badies. That's a very cartoonish view of the world. Actually, lots of governments kill innocent people deliberately, including our own. And Israel has clearly done that over the last few months. And where they haven't done it deliberately, they've done it

reckless. I don't know if you've seen the 97-2 reporting this week, because Israel is using AI to send bombs into militants' homes and they wait for the military. No, but I don't want to let that pass. Can you name the civilians our government has deliberately killed? Or don't have to name the names, but who has the American government civilians deliberately killed? Go to Iraq and check out the number of massacres we carried out. Mahmoudia, Balad. Should we go through all the list of number of Iraqis who were killed by American troops? Delibir. So Americans, deliberately, as a government policy, deliberately killed civilians? No, as a government policy, as a government policy, launched an illegal war based on a

life. We're going to talk about Iraq, in which George Bush, Dick Cheney and Q, yes, knowingly dropped bombs on civilian areas, knowing civilians will get killed for a lot. That's very different than what we're talking about. You said a lot of people knowingly kill civilians, meaning intentionally kill civilians. Yes, I believe Dick Cheney, to go back to your Biden question, if you're going to talk about presidents who are guilty of war crimes, Bush and needs, there's no debate. They should be in there. Okay, I have a few more questions left. I have five minutes. But I just need to clarify the Hamas, because I don't want people you take away.

I don't want your summary to be inaccurate. Just to finish very briefly on the Hamas point. I am saying, I actually question the entire premise of the interview, which is that the only way to get Hamas is to go into Gaza and kill lots of people. I actually think the best way to defeat Hamas is to bring peace to the region, treat Palestinians with equality and dignity. I agree with Shlomo Brom, who says you cannot indefinitely indefinitely control a foreign people forever and expect no response. Shlomo Brom, Israeli general, says the oppressed will eventually rise against the oppressor. His words not mine. I believe the way you defeat Hamas and all terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda, is to deal with the underlying conditions,

deal with the grievances, deal with the anger, deal with the inequality, deal with the injustices, and then you don't get violent messianic groups exploiting them to get recruit. I think Israel's war in Gaza has helped Hamas by creating an entire generation of Palestinians who legitimately hate Israel. I have just a few more questions, but I just want to get see clarity there. Are you saying that Dick Cheney intentionally not to get a military, civilians didn't die, in an attempt to get a military target. They intentionally ordered missiles to be fired against civilians in Iraq for no military purpose.

Why he's sounding so surprised? You know that Henry Kissinger did the same thing, right, in Cambodia, Vietnam? He was given targets for civilians, and it's fine. I just wanted to make clarity there. That's fine. Maybe I'm naive, but I just wanted to be clear. Hold on. If you want real clarity, I don't know what your question is.

Are you asking me, did Dick Cheney, like, assassinate named Iraqis that I don't know? Did Dick Cheney and George Bush sign off on a war in which we did. bombed civilian neighborhoods based on a lie, knowing that civilians would be killed. Yes, they did, and that's a war crime. I'm going to move past this. You mentioned that Israel target civilians, not out of parting to try to get a Hamas figure, but directly and deliberately. And you mentioned the World Kitchen, which I don't think there's evidence. Hold on. Hold on. Now look at the words you use, J.B. 972 magazine makes it clear that they wait for the militant, this AI system that Israel is using with no checks and balances, to wait for the militant

to get home to the wife and kid and then bomb him, even if he doesn't get home. Now, you could say, we're trying to kill the fighter. By the way, that's not legal, Jamie. In fact, you mentioned Iraq earlier. Americans had to check. American military in the field had to check with their superiors before they took out of terrorists if he was around civilians. Israel's not doing that.

They're delegating it to AI. Yeah. There was a new report out. I haven't seen Israel. I think Israel denied that report. But let's get beyond that and we'll see history of done. You think Israel's deliberately killing civilians? I don't believe they are deliberately going after civilians.

I believe they're going after Hamas, and that's impossible. How do you explain children's bodies being brought into hospitals with gunshot, sniper shots to the head? How do you explain? If there are individuals on the ground that, first of all, I don't, I'm not on the ground. I don't know that. But if, is it possible that individuals operating outside of what the IDF is instructed, did something?

Yes, and they should be tried. You still plan to vote for Joe Biden in 2024? $64,000 question, Jamie, wherever I go, especially in Muslim and lefty circles, it's the first question that's raised. Who do we vote for? Do we vote for the fascist? to vote for the guy who's complicit in genocide. It's really hard.

If you'd ask me this on October 6th, it would have been a very easy answer. I said, yes, of course. And actually, he's done a pretty good job. I still think he's done a very good job in the domestic terms. He's done much better than we thought. Look at the jobs report out the day we're taping. But the Gaza issue is a huge issue.

Morally, I understand the threat from Trump. I'm under no illusions. I do not want a Trump presidency. I think we can agree on that that Trump is a threat to democracy. I think that's one area we can agree on. But it's very hard morally to make the case for voting for Joe Biden. I tell other people vote for lesser to evil, but even this year, I'm struggling. I'm struggling, Jamie.

Luckily, you know, depends where you live in America. Not everyone has that struggle. We have a system where only a couple of states really matter. But there are big Muslim and young and black and lefty populations in Georgia in Michigan. And I've been to both places, and they are struggling with what they're going to do. And I wish Joe Biden would come out properly for a ceasefire. I wish he would restrain Benjamin Netanyo. I wish he would call for peace in the Middle East and some kind of statehood for the Palestinians.

That might ameliorated, but it might be too late too. I mean, Jamie, how do you go up to someone in Dearborn, Michigan, or Atlanta, Georgia, who's lost 20 members of their family and say, you should vote for Joe Biden? Could you do that? I couldn't do that. So are you not voting? I guess you haven't. You're undecided, this way.

I haven't decided. And my final question is, I've always been for a two-state solution. But I've never been under the illusion of what a Palestinian state would look like. What do you think a Palestinian state would look like? Would it be a free and open society, a democracy? I don't know. I don't think the Israelis would ever allow a Palestinian state to be free. independent, even the United States really only support some kind of, you know, state-lit.

I support, I used to support a two-state solution. I no longer do. I support equal rights for everyone in the region, whether that means one state, by national state, federation, but I believe everyone should live side-by-side equality. That's what, you know, when Americans are told that the two-state solution is no longer on the table, which, let's be honest, it isn't, they also support. If you look at the polling from the University of Maryland, equal rights, we're Americans. I believe in people from different ethnicities and backgrounds and tribes should be able to live under one constitution as a democracy in a binational, secular state. That's what I would. I'm not Palestinian. I'm not Israeli. Let them decide. I'm not going to

impose my views. But do I support equality for everyone in that part of the world? Yes. The Jews are not leaving. The Arabs are not leaving. Palestinians are there. Israelis are there. That's the reality on the ground. Let's have a democracy. One person, one vote. What do you make, though, of the fact that, and maybe you're a dispute, it's a fact, that Israeli Arabs within Israel have more rights than basically any Arab in the Middle East? I do dispute that a little bit, but what am I supposed to make? I don't know what you want me to do that. Let me take your question and run with it.

And unfortunately, I do have to run off this. But let me tell you this. I'm glad you raised that because I saw an interview with Ehud Olmert recently where he was asked about one state. Why not one state? He said, no, no, we need separation. Palestinian Israelis need separation. If that's the case, what do you do with the one-fifth of the Israeli population

that is Palestinian? Do you tell them to leave as well? And if you can live with one-fifth of the population that's Palestinian, then why can't you have one state for everyone. Ah, unless you want to maintain the Jewish majority at all times, that's a different question. But I think everyone should be able to live side by side as equals. If Israel is an equality, if Israel is a country with equality, which I don't think it is, but let's say it is, then why not have that for everyone?

One person, one vote, Jamie. I'm an American. I doubt that Ehud al-Omart was talking about eliminating the one-fifth of Arabs in Israel. No, he wasn't, but that by my point is, that's the logic of your argument. When you say separation, well, why you keep one-fifth of the Palestinians in your country? Monsor Abbas, who's kind of the leader of the Palestinians or at least one faction of the Palestinians in the Arab world, believes that Israel will always be a Jewish state and he's happy to be a part of the democracy there. So I don't see those as contradictory. And many Palestinians don't, as you know.

I can cite to you multiple Palestinian lawmakers who've been injected from the Knesset. You know why, Jamie? Because they tried to sponsor a bill saying, let's make this an equal country for everyone. And they were chucked out of the Knesser. What kind of country says we can't have a bill that says everyone's equal? Weird, right? Well, well, okay, let me just end on this then. I actually asked about a decade ago, the then-Palestinian ambassador to the United States, can a Jew live in the West Bank in a Jewish mayor in the West Bank in a Palestinian state? And he said, to the point of what you said, no, there needs to be a separation. This needs to have two separate societies. So you're wanting to create a state, I guess, and I understand it. I would too, I guess. I believe in equality. I believe in equality. I believe in equality. I How it looks, I don't know.

But interesting, you mentioned Jew in the West Bank. Recently, the Israeli military killed a Jewish Palestinian in the West Bank because they didn't believe he was Jewish because he's Palestinian. How ironic. Medi, I appreciated this discussion. I too believe in equality. And thank you for joining the Dispatch Podcast. Thanks for having me, Jamie.

Appreciate it. You know,