The Munk Debates Podcast - Be it Resolved, the US should call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza

Episode Date: October 27, 2023

Israel has launched intense strikes on Gaza and shut off water and electricity to the territory as they prepare for a ground invasion in response to Hamas’s terror attacks on October 7th. Thousands of Gazans have been killed in the bombardment, with hundreds of thousands displaced and millions going without basic supplies like fuel and medicine. Human rights groups and left-wing politicians are highly critical of Israel’s response. They argue that a human catastrophe is unfolding in real time as Palestinians in Gaza are being subjected to collective punishment by Israel despite having nothing to do with the attacks on October 7th. Protesters argue that in the name of self-defense, and with the backing of western governments, Israel is violating international law and engaging in ethnic cleansing on a mass scale. The only solution is an immediate and unequivocal ceasefire on all sides. Western leaders, however, have thrown their support behind Israel, providing the country with the time, resources, and diplomatic cover it needs to destroy Hamas and free the hostages. Supporters of Israel argue that the death of innocent civilians, while tragic, is an unintended consequence of defeating a militant group embedded in densely populated areas. Furthermore, there is no such thing as proportionality in a war such as this; body count does not dictate moral high ground. Israel is under attack, and anything short of the complete annihilation of Hamas is a threat to the country’s security and very existence.  Arguing in favour of the resolution is Sarah Leah Whitson. She’s the Executive Director of Democracy for the Arab World Now, and she previously served as Director of the Middle East and North Africa division of Human Rights Watch. Arguing against the resolution is Stephen Rademaker. He served as an Assistant Secretary of State in the George W. Bush administration SOURCES: NBC News, Guardian News   The host of the Munk Debates is Rudyard Griffiths - @rudyardg.   Tweet your comments about this episode to @munkdebate or comment on our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/munkdebates/ To sign up for a weekly email reminder for this podcast, send an email to [e-mail].   To support civil and substantive debate on the big questions of the day, consider becoming a Munk Member at https://munkdebates.com/membership Members receive access to our 10+ year library of great debates in HD video, a free Munk Debates book, newsletter and ticketing privileges at our live events. This podcast is a project of the Munk Debates, a Canadian charitable organization dedicated to fostering civil and substantive public dialogue - https://munkdebates.com/ Senior Producer: Ricki Gurwitz Editor: Kieran LynchBecome a Munk Donor ($50 annually) to get 72-hour advanced access to the full length editions of Friday Focus and Munk Dialogues. Go to www.munkdebates.com to sign up. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

When you're a journalist and people don't trust you, it's always your fault. These people need to be represented. They are Canadian. They deserve to have a voice and a seat at the table. It is time to go back to the office, and the time is now. Russia had reasons to be concerned. They had reasons to be fearful. We're at an absolute turning point in reproduction.

This is the problem with realism. They just treat all countries the same. They don't distinguish between dictatorships and democracies. Welcome to the Monk Debates. Every episode we provide you with a civil and substantive debate on the big issue of the day to arm you, the listener with enough information to make up your own mind. Today's debate, be it resolved, the U.S. should call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Hello, I'm your moderator, Regis.

Well, Israel has launched intensive strikes on Gaza shut off water and electricity to the territory as they prepare for a ground invasion in response to Hamas's terror attacks of a October 7th. Thousands of Gazans have been killed in the bombardment, along with hundreds of thousands displaced and millions going without basic supplies like fuel, food, and medicine. Western leaders have thrown their support behind Israel, providing the country with the time, resources, and diplomatic cover it needs to destroy Hamas and free the Israeli hostages being held in Gaza. Here's U.S. Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken. The attack of October 7th, the slaughtering of men, women, children, the rocketing of Israel that continues to this day, no country, no country could accept that.

And so Israel has not only the right, as we've said, but the obligation to defend itself. We're not in the business of second-guessing what they're doing. supporters of Israel argue that the death of innocent civilians, while tragic, is an unintended consequence of defeating a military group embedded in a densely populated area. There is no such thing as proportionality in a war such as this. Body count does not indicate or dictate moral high ground. Israel is under attack, and anything short of the complete destruction of Hamas is a threat to the country's security and its very existence. Human rights groups and left-wing politicians, however, are highly critical of Israel's response and the West's support of it. Here's U.S. Congresswoman Ilhan Omar.

Where is your humanity? One atrocity. Say this is wrong. As bodies pile up, as neighborhoods are leveled. Protesters argue that a human catastrophe is unfolding in real time as Palestinians and Gaza are being subjected to, collective punishment by Israel, despite having nothing to do with the attacks themselves of October 7th. They say that in the name of self-defense and with the backing of Western governments, Israel is violating international law and engaging in ethnic cleansing on a mass scale. The only solution, supposedly, is an immediate and unequivocal ceasefire on all sides. On this installment of the Monk Debates podcast, we challenge the essence of the essence

of these arguments by debating the motion, be it resolved, the U.S. should call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Arguing in favor of the motion is Sarah Leah Whitson. She's executive director of Democracy for the Arab World now, and she previously served as the director of the Middle East and North Africa Division of Human Rights Watch. Arguing against the motion is Stephen Rademaker, who served as Assistant Secretary of State in the George W. Bush administration. Sarah, Stephen, welcome to the Monk Debates. Hi there. Hello. Topical debate today, an important one to be having, given all the news. So let's get right to it. Our motion, be it resolved, the U.S. should call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Sarah, you're

arguing in favor of the motion. Let's have your opening statement, please. Thank you. I think it is urgent and imperative for the United States to support the ceasefire resolutions that have been put forward at the UN Security Council. Israel has been conducting war crimes and crimes against humanity since it's launched its attack on Gaza, strictly prohibited acts, resulting in the massive casualty toll that we've seen. Over 7,000 Palestinians killed, nearly 3,000 of them children, tens of thousands injured, hundreds of thousands displaced, homes destroyed. These deaths are caused by the indiscriminate bombardment of civilians, civilian residences, shelters, hospital, churches, and mosques.

It was also caused by the deliberate targeting of civilians because Israel treats anyone affiliated with Hamas as a terrorist. It has targeted and killed journalists. Israel is using banned weapons such as white foster. and cluster munitions in civilian areas, and perhaps most significantly, it has imposed a massive siege on civilians, collectively punishing them by depriving them of items essential to their survival, like water, food, and electricity. It has coupled this with the forced displacement of the population, with Israeli government officials warning residents that they may be considered

complicit with a terrorist organization if they don't leave, and that the object is to depopulate Gaza permanently. These are not accidental crimes. These deaths are not collateral damage. Israeli officials have made clear that their intent is to starve and destroy the civilian population, calling them less than animals, refusing to recognize their status of civilians, even calling for their annihilation. We now face the risk of genocide. It is very important to emphasize that there's no justification, legal or ethical, for violations of international humanitarian law. The Hamas atrocities in Israel do not give Israel license to carry out its own atrocities, which it has done. There is no way for Israel to reach its stated military objective without committing these crimes

in a densely populated area and without a massive death toll for its own soldiers should it carry out a ground invasion. It has no plans for a day after. There is no strategy behind, beyond the annihilation and collective punishment in a massive act of rage. The United States itself, exposes itself to legal liability for war crimes given the ongoing international criminal court investigation for aiding and abetting Israeli war crimes by providing it weapons and assistance, as well as inviting global scorn, which will undermine and is undermining U.S. support in other arenas like the war in Ukraine. All countries are obligated to respect and ensure respect for international humanitarian law as set out in the Geneva Conventions. That means the United

States must not itself violate the law and must neither encourage nor aid or assist its violation by others. This is also interpreted as being duty-bound to respect and ensure respect for IHL, international humanitarian law, which can only be achieved by a ceasefire. As a state party of the Genocide Convention, the United States is also required to act to prevent genocide where there is a risk of genocide as there is in Gaza now. The international community wants a ceasefire. United States was the sole veto of a Brazilian resolution that would have at least provided for a humanitarian pause. The U.S. public wants a ceasefire. The majority of Republicans and the vast majority of Democrats want a ceasefire. There's no way to secure freedom of hostages while the

bombardment and siege continues. There are 223 hostages, an unknown number of their Americans. And there are an unknown number of American citizens who also live in Gaza whose lives we cannot protect unless this war stops immediately. There's also a very serious risk of escalation with the war spreading to other countries as the recent attacks against U.S. forces in Syria, in Iraq, and against U.S. forces near Yemen have attested. So American troops and interests are at risk across the region. Ultimately, we know this requires a political resolution. We have had enough wars in Gaza to know that there is no military solution to the continued occupation of Gaza. Israel has legal remedies available to it to hold accountable the perpetrators of the October

7 atrocities. Those are the remedies it should be seeking. With that, I'll pause and I look forward to our discussion. Thank you, Sarah. Let's move on to our next opening statement. Stephen, you're up. You're speaking in opposition to our motion today, be it resolved. The U.S. should for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Let's have your opening remarks. Thank you. First, let me just say I'm shocked hearing that presentation to hear a raft of criticisms of Israel and narrate a word of criticism of the unbelievable atrocities committed by Hamas that triggered this round of violence. Our resolution is whether a ceasefire should be imposed in Gaza. Let's remember there was a ceasefire.

fire in Gaza. It had been in place for a long period of time and Hamas chose to break the ceasefire. And it didn't just choose to break the ceasefire by some random acts of violence. I mean, this was a premeditated colossal. I mean, you want to talk about violations of the laws of war. I mean, this is the book of violations of the laws of war committed by Hamas intentionally in violation of the ceasefire that had been in place. You know, 1,400 dead, 260 kids at a concert murdered in cold blood, you know, the most barbaric acts, cutting, you know, unborn children out of their mother's wounds and killing babies, you know, in cold blood. And then they take 230 hostages, you know, complete violation of the laws of war, every law of war, fired 3,000 missiles and indiscriminately at Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. I mean, they were not aiming for military targets.

This is terrorism, pure and simple. And the people who committed these atrocities now say they want a ceasefire. Well, it doesn't work that way. You're not entitled to break the ceasefire when it suits you, and then when it becomes inconvenient to you to turn around and say, well, no, no, we really need the protection of a ceasefire. Hamas committed an armed attack against Israel on October 7, and under every principle of international law, Israel has a right to defend itself against the threat. Now, you know, we've seen episodes

in the past, sort of tit-for-tat exchanges of, you know, violence, Hamas attacks, Israel responds, it goes on for a while, and then it ends. In those instances, what we were seeing was basically what under international law is called reprises. So Israel was, was, was, was conducting a reprisal for the attacks it has sustained. Its intention was limited. It was to punish Hamas for what had done, perhaps to destroy the capability that had been used to perpetrate the attack.

This time around, it's different. Israel declared war on Hamas as a result of what happened here. And not surprising, given the enormity of what Hamas did, the under international law in a state of war, Israel is not limited to conducting reprisals. You know, President or Prime Minister Netanyahu has articulated what Israel's war aim is. And I'll just read his words. It's to eliminate Hamas by destroying its military and governing capabilities.

Okay, so this is not tit for tat. This is not retaliation. They aim to destroy Hamas. They are entitled under international law to destroy Hamas. That, this is not unlike where America was after Pearl Harbor, okay? You know, what happened at Pearl Harbor? The Japanese surprise attack, they sank five battleships, they destroyed or disabled, 18 of our naval vessels. I think about 2,400 Americans were killed. At that point, America's response was not limited to sinking 18 Japanese vessels

and killing 2400 Japanese and then calling it even. America decided at that point that its goal in the war that we declared in response to that attack, our goal was the unconditional surrender of Japan. And under international law, that was a perfectly appropriate goal. And that is the situation Israel finds itself in today. It is entitled under international law to demand Hamas's unconditional surrender and to use whatever military force is necessary to achieve the defeat, destruction, or surrender of Amaz. They've not actually called for surrender. That was America's choice in World War II. You know, by the way, we demanded Germany's unconditional surrender too, and they never even attacked us. All they did was declare war on us, and we demanded their unconditional surrender.

Not unlike after 9-11 either in America. We were attacked. We went halfway around the world and overthrew a government that we thought was responsible for the attack of 9-11. So the idea that Israel is under some obligation to respond in a restrained way is just a misunderstanding of the legal environment that we're in today as a result of what Hamas did. To be sure, there are limits on what Israel can do in using force in Gaza. The limits are defined by military necessity. That's the operative legal principle here.

Whatever is militarily necessary to achieve their objectives. And if the objective is to destroy Hamas, they are entitled to go into Gaza, shoot their way in. They are entitled to, you know, similar to what America did in Germany in World War II. I mean, we didn't limit the amount of force we brought to bear. We did what was militarily necessary to achieve victory. Somewhere between one and two thousand, I'm sorry, one and two million German civilians were killed in World War II by America and our allies. I don't know whether Sarah considers that to have been a war crime perpetrated by America and our allies. But I don't think most Americans consider that we committed war crimes against Germany

in using all the force necessary to achieve our objective. And our objective in that case was the unconditional surrender of Germany. Military necessity is also limited by a duty to an obligation to use constant care to protect civilians. But that does not mean that if Hamas is hiding behind civilians is prohibited from using the force necessary to achieve its military objective. One of the unfortunate things in war is there are collateral civilian casualties. And when Hamas perpetrates atrocities intentionally as it did and then retreats and hides behind civilians, yes, and Israel chooses to respond as it's chosen to respond, there will be civilian casualties.

That's not Israel's fault. That's Hamas's fault for hiding behind the civilians. And I think just the final point, the use of siege in warfare is not prohibited. I mean, that is a perfectly acceptable tool or strategy or tactic to use in warfare. It's been used throughout human history. It's been used. America used it in Iraq on two occasions. I mean, I don't love the example, but Russia has used it in Ukraine.

President Assad has used it repeatedly in his own civil war in Syria. And let's be clear, siege can be ugly, but the alternative, if Israel is determined to achieve its objective, which is to destroy Hamas, is to shoot its way into Gaza. And that's not going to be good for civilians either. So using siege to weaken the enemy and perhaps minimize the casualties that will occur once Israel commences ground operations is a problem. perfectly legitimate tactic under international law. Thank you, Stephen, for that opening statement. We're going to go to rebuttals now. I've let you go longer because of the complexity of this issue on your opening

statements. I'm going to ask you in your rebuttals to try to keep to our two to three minute rule because we're going to have lots of time over the course of this debate to get into your key arguments. So, Sarah, you're up first with your rebuttal. Yeah, thank you. I think that my counterport, Stephen Knight, has fund. fundamentally lacking in an understanding of international humanitarian law, the purpose of which is to

protect civilians in a time of war, the purpose of which is to put very serious restraints on parties to a conflict. Citing Hamas's atrocities in October 7 is completely irrelevant to assessing Israel's conduct and what Israel may do in Gaza. Israel, as the point I made clear, Hamas is very violations of the laws of war does not give Israel license to violate the laws of war. And I would like you to consider the arguments you just made and apply them to the war in Russia and Ukraine, where you yourself have said that Russia should be held accountable for its violation of the laws of war. If Russian government followed your prescriptions, imagine what it could do to Ukraine. If Russia applied a siege, cutting off all electricity, water,

food, medicine on the people of Ukraine, you would be outraged and you would be citing the laws of war. The fact of the matter is that self-defense is limited, limited by very important rules in international law, which require a warring party to limit its attacks to military targets, to at all times distinguish between civilian and military objects, and where it is unsure if an object is a military object to refrain from attacking. In fact, sieges such as the one that Israel has imposed deliberately intending to starve and punish the civilian population are strictly prohibited international law because that would be the law of the jungle, not the law that is meant to restrain parties to a conflict. In fact, sieges are not permitted

when they deprive civilians of items essential to their survival. That is a classic definition of a war crime. And it's shocking to me that you would cite atrocities committed from World War II, including the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as an example of an acceptable mode of warfare. The laws of war were passed exactly to address the abuses that we saw during the course of World War II. The fact is that not anything goes in the war, and that is why we have laws to restrain us. If you don't want laws of war, then you can't want them anywhere. And it would be inappropriate to encourage parties to target civilians as they have been doing in Gaza because you want to see Israel win this particular battle. We all know there will be no military solution to this

conflict. We all know that as long as the people in Gaza live under occupation, live under siege as they have been living since 2006, there will be endless generations of Palestinians who will resist their occupation. We pray and hope that they resist their occupation using lawful means, but sadly, that may not always end up being the case, and we may see future atrocities, if not this year, next year. It is incumbent on the international community to cease this mindless terrorization of the Palestinian population. If we are to weep for the children of Israel who have been killed by Hamas, must be not weep five times, ten times, ten times, more, for the five times, ten times more children who have been murdered and slaughtered by

Israeli bombardment. And yes, children who have also been torn out of the bellies of their deceased mothers because bombs fell on them. I urge you to show the compassion and empathy you seem to have an abundance for Israeli civilians, for Palestinian civilians. I urge you to put yourself on the side and the team of civilians. I urge us all to consider upholding international law, not competing to the bottom, not racing to the bottom, as Stephen's suggestions would have us do. However outraged you might be at Hamas' attacks, this way of fighting is not going to achieve them. Furthermore, as I mentioned, this is undermining U.S. interests globally. The United States will not win the war against Russia in Ukraine, the United States will not succeed in persuading Russia not to use banned weapons against

civilians in Ukraine if the United States continues to look the other way when Israel uses banned weapons, including cluster munitions in white phosphorus and civilian areas. Our priority has to be protecting all of humanity. Our priority has to be protecting all civilians. And since we know that sooner or later this war is going to end. Let's make it end sooner. Let's protect whatever credibility the United States has left. Let's avoid seeing Americans, American officials prosecuted in the Hague alongside Israeli officials, alongside Hamas officials by entangling us in this war. Let's avoid seeing this war spread across the entire region, as it now risks doing. And let's turn to a political solution, a political solution that will grant.

equality and freedom and human rights for all of the people living between the river and the sea, not just for some of them, not just for Israeli Jews, but for Palestinian Christians and Muslims and everyone else living in that territory. We know there will never be an end to that conflict, a military conflict, a state of war, which, by the way, has been continuing since 1967, has never stopped without a political solution. That should be the goal of the international, community if we don't want to see any more Israeli babies killed and if we don't want to see any more Palestinian babies killed. Thank you, Sarah, for that rebuttal. Stephen, I'm going to give you a little more time on the clock, but try to think of three, four minutes for your rebuttal,

and then we'll move on to the moderated middle of our debate today. Well, there's so many fallacies in what I just heard that it's hard to know where to begin. But maybe I'll start with the first proposition, which is I have never argued and I wouldn't not argue. that the atrocities committed, the war crimes committed by Hamas that triggered this conflict, justify the commission by Israel of war crimes or atrocities. What I argued was that the atrocities committed by Hamas entitled Israel to set as its war aim in this war that it has declared in response to those atrocities the destruction of Hamas. That is a perfectly legitimate war aim to adopt in response to the attack that was launched against Israel, just as America was entitled

to declare war on Japan after Pearl Harbor, just as we were entitled to go to war with congressional authorization, which is the equivalent today in America of a declaration of war. We went to war in Afghanistan against the Taliban and overthrew them. Israel is in the same place today. It is entitled to set as its war objective the defeat, the destruction, the surrender of Hamas. And in pursuing that objective, they are allowed to use the force necessary, whatever is necessary for the operative legal term is military necessity. Whatever they have to do to achieve that is permissible, as long as they have due regard for civilians. Now, when enemy

combatants are hiding behind civilians, something bad is going to happen to those civilians. Maybe not all of them, hopefully very few of them. But there's no war. that is conducted without some collateral damage to civilians. And international, I mean, if you wanted to fight war without any civilian casualties, international humanitarian law would forbid war. It does not. It permits war. It understands that wars will be fought.

It tries to minimize civilian damages. And a whole bunch of accusations have been thrown out in this discussion that Israel's using indiscriminate force, deliberately targeting civilians, collective punishment, forced displacement, depopulation. I mean, these are groundless allegations, absolutely groundless. There's no evidence. I mean, what is clear, Hamas targeted civilians, okay? There's 260 kids that were a concert and were machine gun and had their throat slit. They were civilians targeted by Hamas. I'm sure it is true. It's absolutely true that civilians are being killed in God. But that's unintentional, it's collateral, it's something that Israel tries hard to afford, tries hard to avoid.

But as I said, international humanitarian law recognizes that there's no such thing as immaculate warfare. And especially when an armed force is hiding behind civilians, the unfortunate reality is there will be civilian casualties, and that's not prohibited under international humanitarian law. What's required is to use all means available consistent with military necessity to protect the civilians. But the humanitarian considerations do not override military necessity. A combatant, an armed force is entitled to use the force necessary to achieve its legitimate military objective. And in this case, the destruction of Hamas is a legitimate military objective. I mean, just a couple of other points because I can't resist. I mean, just please please be brief because we're going to get into all those points.

Two points. Two point. Cluster munitions are not a banned weapon. Okay, there's a treaty, a number of countries have agreed they want to ban it. But America today is arming the government of Ukraine with cluster munitions. Okay, we have cluster munitions in the American inventory. We're giving them to Ukraine to use against the Russians. Saudi Arabia deploys cluster munitions. Most Middle Eastern countries have.

have them. It's not, I mean, you might call it a partially banned weapon, but there is no norm of international law that prohibits the possession or use of cluster munitions. International Criminal Court prosecution of Americans, I don't think so. America's not party to the International Criminal Court. Israel's not part of the International Criminal Court. We have a law in the books in America that rejects the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over America, and I do not believe there's zero chance of any prosecution of Americans in connection with this war that's taking place in Gaza. Thank you, Stephen, for that rebuttal.

Let me now join the debate and refocus us. This has been terrific, but I want to try to get right back to our resolution today, which is be at result, the U.S. should call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. And, Sarah, let me come to you first. The concept of a ceasefire, you know, is the, cessation of hostilities. I mean, let's just kind of name it for for what it is. Right now, though, Sarah, it looks like neither participant Israel nor Hamas want a ceasefire. Hamas continues to rocket Israel, the day of our recording today, Friday, the end of October.

We are seeing a successful Hamas rocket strike on a civilian neighborhood, in Tel Aviv. So I guess, you know, there's the world as we would like it, and then there's the world as it is. So I want to hear a bit more from you about why you think a ceasefire is even possible. I mean, why should we be discussing it if it's not within the realm of possibility? Sure. Warring parties virtually never want a ceasefire.

So this is not a question of what Israel wants or what Hamas wants. This is a question of what the international community wants, what the UN Security Council wants, what the parties, the international parties of nations, the international community of nations is obligated to do everything it can to restore peace and security. Now, the United States is an outlier in opposing a ceasefire. The United States was the only country to veto a Brazilian UN Security Council resolution that would have caused a humanitarian pause, which is a short ceasefire, at least for the provision of aid. every other member of the Security Council supported the ceasefire resolution or abstained, not wanting to veto it.

So this is something that the United States is an outlier on. Can the international community achieve a peacefire if they call for a ceasefire? I don't know. But what we're debating here now is whether the U.S. should support the existing calls for a ceasefire and stop obstructing peace, because that is what the United States is doing at the UN Security Council. right now. The other thing to keep in mind is this is not just about what's in Israel's interest. We're not here to debate what's in Israel or the Israeli government or the Netanyahu government or the extremist Israeli government's interest or in Hamas's interest. We're here to consider

whether the United States should support a ceasefire resolution. And there are important reasons for the United States to do this that go well beyond the immediate conflict between Israel and the Palestinian people in Gaza. And that is it's credibility. and reputation on an international stage. If the United States doesn't act to stop Israeli atrocities, to stop the deliberate targeting of civilians, to stop treating anyone who remains because they haven't fled as Hamas and therefore subject to attack,

to disregard the laws of war, and to treat anyone who's associated or affiliated with Hamas as a target, as opposed to limiting their targeting to combatants, then the United States is never going to be able to persuade anybody else to support them in the war against Russia because people don't see the difference. People see Russia committing atrocities in Ukraine and the U.S. trying to stop them, Israel committing atrocities in Gaza, and the U.S. not just not doing anything to stop them, but arming them, aiding and abetting them. Thank you, Sarah. Okay, Stephen, let's come to you on this. I want to go back on this point about the nature of the hostilities

this moment. You've served your government at the highest levels of defense and security as an expert on security issues. Why wouldn't a ceasefire, in fact, be in Israel's interest right now? This humanitarian crisis is compounding. It's getting worse by the hour. Arguably, it's going to impede Israel's range of action. It's freedom of maneuver in the coming days and weeks and months. why isn't it in Israel's interest right now to get some kind of ceasefire in place, get sustained humanitarian aid into Gaza, stop this humanitarian crisis, and stop losing an international public relations battle for public opinion and for support for Israel in its legitimate war on Hamas? Well, Rudya, I don't know if you're an American or a Canadian. If you were an American

and you put yourself in the place you were two weeks after 9-11. And some well-intentioned foreigner was arguing that, you know, it's really in America's interest to declare a ceasefire against al-Qaeda because, you know, you don't really want to, you're going to have to kill all those Afghans and it's going to really be a nasty thing. And, you know, maybe in 20 years you're going to withdraw and that'll be bad for you. you know, we would, in America, we would have no patience, no patience at all for advice on where our interests lie, what we needed to do to defend ourselves against the unbelievable surprise attack, the human loss of life,

you know, the property destruction that we had experienced. And that's where Israel is today. And, you know, all these well-intentioned, you know, outside, you know, coaches are saying, oh, well, you know, you really ought to think about it differently. You want to do something different. You know, I think Israel is a democracy. Today has a coalition government. I know there are a lot of people don't like Benjamin Netanyahu, but, you know, he's now sharing

power across the political spectrum in Israel. This is a national effort that is taking place in Israel. They are where America was after 9-11. And as a democracy, as a mature country that, you know, highly educated people, you know, advanced technology. I mean, they can think through where their interests lie and where they want, where they want to go. And, you know, they will decide if a ceasefire is in their interest, if, you know, limiting their war aims in Gaza are in their interest. And I think it's appropriate for us to defer to them just as it was appropriate for the rest of the world to defer to America after 9-11 to decide how it was going to respond to what was, for those of us who lived through us, but a terrifying period.

And that's where Israel is today. We ought to be sensitive and mindful of that. That's helpful. Okay, Sarah, let's have you react to that, that, you know, ceasefires are in the eyes of the beholder. And unless the United Nations, the international community is willing somehow to impose a ceasefire or impose punishments on Israel.

I'm not sure what punishments they could impose on Hamas at this point. How do we get to a ceasefire other than just simply a declaration of such, which I think you would agree is kind of not the point. Yeah, I'll quickly address that. You know, the UN Security Council is limited in its ability to impose anything anywhere in the world, sadly. Or we would see more wars stopped. But in the case of Israel and its war against the Palestinian people in Gaza, if the United States was to support a ceasefire resolution, that naturally what should follow is that the United States would end providing military support to Israel for its war in Gaza. And I think if Israel understood that the United States was not going to have military battleships protecting it and defending it and potentially even engaging in combat alongside it, I think Israel would reconsider.

calculate its objectives and interests in what it can try to get away with. The UN Security Council has many tools at its disposal, tools that it is used against numerous nations, including sanctions to try to get them to do what it wants, questionable whether those are effective. But I'd like to turn back to a very important point that Stephen made that I think actually makes my point clearer than ever. America's response in the wake of 9-11 was a catastrophe. It was idiotic. It led to the greatest failures in American foreign policy for decades. But Stephen wants us to follow America's path in its rage following 9-11. The United States went about targeting a country that had nothing to do with 9-11, and that was Iraq. The United States went around invading and occupying

Iraq for decades, causing massive harm and destruction to the civilian population in Iraq, even though they had absolutely nothing to do with al-Qaeda or 9-11, but, you know, But yet, Stephen thinks that's the model that Israel should follow, that catastrophic decision-making that allowed people's rage and anger to guide foreign policy decision-making into idiotic choices and outcomes that have resounded not just to the horror, the ongoing horror of the Iraqi people, but to the complete failure in American foreign policy, miring us in wars not only in Iraq, but subsequently in Afghanistan, resulting in no positive outcomes for the American people. Okay, let me pause you there because I think that's a key point I want to hear Stephen come back on.

Stephen, with hindsight, it's always 20-20, but with hindsight, wouldn't the United States be counseling Israel? You know what? Maybe a ceasefire is not such a bad thing. You can reflect on how you're actually going to sustain your security over the long term. What are the approaches that you're going to need in terms of international support to, I don't know, figure out a new, a new theory of the case for Gaza, whether it's a new government in Gaza that the Gulf states and others come together to support, whether it's getting international support for recognizing your legitimate borders that extends beyond just United Nations resolutions, that extends to other

key players in the Arab world. So why Stephen isn't it best really as difficult as it would be politically to take that pause and reflect as to what truly is in Israel's interests and do that via ceasefire? Well, I'm just kind of stunned by the paternalistic attitude that underlies that suggestion that, you know, these Israelis are really just children, you know, and they can't think clearly for themselves, any more than America was able to think clearly for itself after 9-11. And so we grown-ups should step in and, you know, and to carry Sarah's suggestion to its conclusion, we should step in, pass a UN resolution. If the Israelis don't do what we tell them, then we should pull the rug out from under them economically. We should even maybe

impose sanctions on them. Let's be clear, that's all fanciful. I mean, there's zero chance. We all know that there's zero chance. The bond between America and Israel is strong, and it's strengthened by the fact that we both experienced horrific acts of terrorism. And, you know, I think America gives great deference to the Israelis in, in calculating how they wish to respond to terror. Frankly, they have more experience doing it than we do. They live in a pretty tough neighborhood. And they've been putting up with stuff like this for a long time.

I don't know what advice the United States is giving Israel privately, but I think it would be perfectly appropriate for the United States to share its lessons learned from its experience. But I don't think we should take the decision making out of Israel's hands. The international law defines what Israel is entitled to do. Given the attack that it's sustained, Israel is entitled to adopt the war aim that it seems to have adopted of the destruction of Hamas. And it's able to use all means necessary, consistent with military necessity, to achieve that aim. Yes, it's regrettable there will be civilian casualties. But it's regrettable that Hamas is hiding behind civilians.

And war is hell. And Hamas knew this when it broke the ceasefire and launched its massive act of terrorism against Israel. And let me just say, you know, the Iraq war, I think, was different than 9-11. The response to 9-11 was our invasion of Afghanistan. Iraq was separately authorized by Congress. And let me just say, I know a lot of Iraqis, and I don't know a single Iraqis, not grateful to America for overthrowing a horrible tyrant, a gross human rights violator.

Maybe you know some Iraqis who regret what America did, but I've never met an Iraqi who feels differently than I just described it. Rudyard Griffiths here, the executive director of the Monk Debates. Well, this November 3rd, we will be convening in downtown Toronto at Roy Thompson Hall for our 2023 autumn. Monk debate. The topic before the House, the crisis of liberalism for exceptional debaters coming from the United Kingdom and the U.S. to debate this all-important topic. Visit our website, www.com, for information on how you can get tickets and information on live streaming the debate on November 3rd.

We've got you covered all that information right now at Triple W Monk Debates. Bates with an s dot com. Sarah, let me come back to you. I'm conscious of our time. I just want to address this larger argument that the notion, the conception of a ceasefire is predicated on the idea that Israel can forego reestablishing its national security. I mean, I think you would agree that the violence and the scale, the attack on October 7 was probably the greatest security.

failure, the greatest destabilization of Israeli citizens' sense of their security within their national borders since the founding of the state of Israel. It certainly was the largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. Are you sympathetic to the idea that how could Israelis live adjacent to a statelet? I don't know what you call Gaza, but it's certainly more than just a terrorist camp. This is an army of 40,000 strong militants who on October 7th showed that their intention vis-a-vis Israel was to butcher, kill, rape, and murder innocent civilians. They seem to make little, if any, differentiation between military and civilian targets. Maybe, in fact, they preferred civilian targets. So do you have any sympathy to the idea that Israel simply

cannot function as a democracy, as a society, as a polity with this appalling genocidal risk mere kilometers away from their UN-recognized national borders. Thanks. Thanks for that. A couple of important points to make with that regard. First of all, Israel has never declared its borders, and that's not accidental. And there is a name for Gaza. there is a name for the West Bank, Golan, East Jerusalem, and those are the occupied Palestinian territory. Gaza is not a statelet. Gaza is occupied territory under international law, and Israel is the occupying state. No matter how much they will refuse that characterization, the international community, including the UN Security Council, including even the United States, recognizes Gaza

as occupied territory. So let's be really clear on what we're talking about. want the people of the region to live in peace and security. I want them to have equal rights under the sovereign that rules over them. I want them to enjoy safety and security. But I don't want that just for Israelis. I don't want that just for Jews. I want it also for Palestinians. I want it also for the Christians and Muslims and Druze, Sudanese, many, many different peoples who now live in those territories between the river and the sea, between Israel and the Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory. And looking at the evidence of the past several decades, I can assure you that Israelis will not enjoy peace and security. Certainly Palestinians

are not enjoying peace and security. And that Israel cannot be a democracy when it rules by apartheid. This is a conclusion that UN agencies have reached, that every major human rights organization that studies international law and apartheid law has reached, that Harvard Law School has reached. And so we can keep disputing it and looking away from the obvious facts in front of us. But there is no democracy. There is no security. There is no peace for all the people living between the river and the sea. And the only way these atrocities are going to end, the only way we are going to save the lives of the hundreds of Israeli children who were killed and the thousands of Palestinian children who have been killed is by a political resolution that establishes

respect for human rights, that establishes equality, that establishes a democracy for all of the people living in that area. And they need to democratically decide how they are going to organize their governance. I just want to get back to one point that Stephen has made, because again, I think it reflects a misunderstanding of international humanitarian law. First of all, the notion of human shielding. This is an allegation that Israel has been making for decades. In fact, the cases of human shielding that Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International documented have actually involved Israeli officials, including using children to knock on houses of

suspected militants to open their front doors, just to give you one example. But the mere presence of parties to a conflict of militants, of armed groups, of soldiers in a civilian area does not constitute the crime of shielding. The crime of shielding means deliberately using a civilian in order to protect yourself from attack. Urban warfare is not civilian shielding. If urban warfare were civilian shielding, then the presence of any Ukrainian troops in any Ukrainian city would constitute shielding and open everyone up there to attack, which is what Stephen's suggesting. and I can't imagine he would make that same argument about Ukrainians and Ukrainian armed forces in Ukraine vis-a-vis Russia. And I really want to invite Stephen to think about making the exact same arguments he's making to the war in Ukraine and Russia, and I don't think he would. And furthermore,

even if there are militants present among a civilian population that does not give the party warring on the other side, in this case is real, the license to treat everyone there as subject to attack. Guess what? Urban warfare is hard. Guess what? It's impossible to distinguish between military and civilian objects in an area as densely populated as Gaza. And that's exactly why there can be no lawful military solution. There can be no military solution that respects the laws of war. And that's why we are seeing such a massively high death toll. And that's why we need to have a ceasefire, because there can be no military solution. There is no way for Israel to achieve its so-called military objective, the one that Stephen is claiming it has, without violating laws of war. That's the reality on the ground.

We can't wish it away. We can't pretend that that reality isn't there. Is it hard for Israel to fight a lawful war? I would say it's impossible for Israel to fight a lawful war. at this moment in time in Gaza. And the same may be true for Palestinian armed groups who have said to me, well, how can we fight Israel other than to launch these rockets, other than to carry out these incursions that sadly kill civilians?

No, they're not allowed to do that, and Israel isn't allowed to do that. We can't expect anyone to respect the laws of war if we don't demand respect for the laws of war from our partners and our allies. Sarah, thank you for that. And I just were conscious of time, I want to give Stephen the last word, and I want to then go to closing statements. And I just, I think it is for the record, make a clarification that Hamas targeted civilians.

The Israeli military does not purposely target civilians for terror in the same way that Hamas did on October 7. And that is a false equivalency, which we will not accept here on the month debate. So, Stephen, to come back to you, the last word before we go to closing statements, what about this idea of the parallels between the war in Ukraine and how the United States is approaching and thinking about that war versus Israel and its war against Hamas? It seems that there are some contradictions there. Is that a double standard? Well, first, I want to thank Sarah for conceding. the logical conclusion that follows from everything she said today. And the logical conclusion, which I'm going to quote her words back,

it's impossible for Israel to fight a lawful war in gossip. Yes, that is the conclusion that follows from your claim about what international law or international humanitarian law requires in this situation. And I submit that that is a completely preposterous conclusion. I mean, international humanitarian law does not forbid a country from defense, just because the people who attacked it had then gone and insinuated themselves among a civilian population. And that doesn't give them impunity or immunity from a military response. And Israel is entitled to carry out a military response irrespective of where the enemy has gone. And the conclusion

that follows from Sarah's argument is that basically Israel just needs to sort of take it on the in repeatedly and then not respond because any response would would would would inadvertently kill some civilians and that's prohibited. That is that is flatly not what international law provides and I mean you'll find no country that sustains attacks and then adopts this position that well gee we'd like to respond but you know unfortunately the civilians would be killed if inadvertently if we responded so we're just not going to respond at all that's not how any country would respond that's not what international law provides. This analogy with Ukraine is, is, you know, false on so many levels. The, I mean, Ukraine is a war of aggression, not just a war of aggression, a war of territorial conquest.

I mean, it's something that we haven't seen since World War II, really. I mean, it's a return to the old-fashioned ways in which European powers dealt with one another, where they try and conquer one another or, you know, lop off some of their neighbors' territories. and it's important to resist aggression. Yes, Russia has committed violations of the law of war, and no one can condone that. I don't think Russia is, I would say Russia is being quite indiscriminate in its use of force in Russia, I'm sorry, in Ukraine, and I think it's probably committed war crimes as a consequence of that. I don't think, from what I know, Israel tries much harder than Russia tries in Ukraine to avoid civilian casualties.

And, you know, I mean, historically, they used to the system of tapping buildings before they were making phone calls to people to tell them to get out of buildings. They've asked the residents of Northern Gaza to please remove yourselves if you can so that you're not in the way. I mean, that's perfectly appropriate, it seems to me, that, you know, the Israelis are criticized for doing that, but I think it could be criticized more if they didn't. The Russians don't do these things, but, you know, fundamentally, Israel is responding to aggression. Fundamentally, Russia is committing aggression. So to equate Russia and Israel is preposterous, I mean, it was Hamas who initiated this war. It was Hamas that broke the ceasefire. Excellent, Stephen. Thank you for that. Let's go to closing statements. We're going to put a couple of minutes on the clock.

This is your opportunity to kind of sum up the key points, the key ideas you want to leave our audience with. Sarah, you've got the first opportunity. Yeah, I want to reiterate that the responsible role of the United States will be to support a ceasefire and to end the atrocities that are underway, which in less than three weeks of fighting, has produced a death toll that is nearly equal to the death toll in Ukraine by Russians over almost a year of fighting. So the notion that Israelis are exercising restraint is so utterly belied by the facts. We know that there must be a political solution to the continued occupation and siege of Gaza.

There is no way that Israel will be able to successfully annihilate all military resistance to its ongoing occupation and siege, even if it kills every single militant that was involved in the horrendous attack on Israel. Certainly, there will be a new generation who will seek to end their imprisonment, to end the occupation of Gaza, to end the siege on millions of people in Gaza. I know that some of us have very sympathetic views to to Israel. And it makes it hard for us to recognize the brutal facts on the ground, to dilute ourselves into thinking that somehow Israel has been more restrained than Russia and Ukraine, despite the overwhelming evidence of the numbers of children killed 3,000 in less than three weeks.

But somehow we can keep our eyes close to that because we are partisan and biased and not partisan and biased in favor of civilians and humanity, but partisan and biased in favor of one political party, one party versus others. And I really think we need to check those biases. I think, again, it's just as equally difficult for people to recognize and understand that Israel is deliberately targeting civilians in Gaza. Its statements have made that clear, and I want to just read to you some of those where the head of the National Security Council, senior Israeli military officials, has said the emphasis is on damage and not on accuracy, and that there will be no electricity and no water, there will be only destruction,

where the National Security Council head said creating a severe humanitarian crisis in Gaza is a necessary means to achieve the goal. And Gaza will become a place where no humanitarian crisis. human being can exist. I just want to make you all understand that there is no effort to distinguish between civilians and combatants and to respect the laws of war. Again, ultimately, if what we want to see is the saving of the most precious thing, human life, if we want to see the preservation of Israeli babies and Palestinian babies, if we want to put ourselves as supporting the legitimate aspirations of Israelis, but also the legitimate aspirations of Palestinians. Ask yourself, Stephen,

have you given equal consideration to the legitimate aspirations of Palestinian men, women, and children? The majority of the people in Gaza are children. Are you taking their interests to heart? There must be a political solution, and the sooner we turn to it, the sooner we can save lives. Stephen, let's get your closing statement now. Sarah seems to put a lot of stock in these casualty numbers that are coming out of Gaza. And I would just point out for the record that the president of the United States has stated that he thinks he doesn't trust those numbers. He said he had no notion that Palestinians are telling the truth about the casualties that they've sustained. that's interesting that he would say that.

The numbers are large, but I don't think the Palestinians distinguish between civilian casualties and combatant casualties. I don't know whether Sarah would contend that Israel has no right to kill the people who came in and committed horrific acts of terrorism in Israel, but certainly I believe Israel has the right to find and kill those people. And to the extent they've succeeded, I assume their deaths are among the, among the, Palestinian casualty figures, I don't shed a tear for the death of terrorists. I also know there was this incident with the hospital in Gaza that was allegedly hit by an Israeli missile, and I think the end, the Palestinian numbers changed on it, but in the end, they said 471 were killed. I think all evidence points to the fact that that hospital was actually,

It was actually its parking lot, was hit by a Palestinian missile that went off course. And so, you know, that's at least 471 casualties that I assume are including these numbers, but they're actually inflicted by Palestinians on their own people, not by the Israelis. So, but I don't mean to be dismissive of the fact that there have been civilian casualties and they're going to be more civilian casualties. And Amas knew this was going to happen when they chose to break the ceasefire. And not just to, you know, say, you know, this was not a minor incursion. This was a well-planned incursion intended to kill and maim as many Israeli civilians as possible to basically terrify the Israeli population.

And let's not forget they then took, I think the number now is 230 Israeli hostages. I have not heard Sarah express any concern about that, although that's the clearest violation one could find of the laws of war to take home. And, you know, Israel is contending with that. But my final point, I want to stress what Hamas did was absolutely horrific and illegal. That does not justify Israel in doing horrific and illegal things, but it does justify Israel setting as a war aim, not just killing an equal number of Palestinians to the number of Israelis that were killed or firing an equal number of missiles against Gaza to what Hamas fired against Israel. They are entitled to set as their war aim, the destruction of the governing entity that consciously chose to launch this assault against Israel. And they are prepared, they are able to use all force consistent with military necessity to achieve that legitimate objective.

And yes, regrettably, there are going to be civilian casualties. I believe that contrary to what Sarah says, Israel is doing the best it can to minimize civilian casualties. But contrary to what she says, international humanitarian law does not forbid the conduct of military operations when they're going to be civilian casualties so long as measures are taken to minimize those casualties, which I think Israel is doing. So we as Americans appropriately need to defer to our ally in the region who suffered an attack to them, that to them is comparable to what we suffered on 9-11. And I don't think we need to treat them as children who need to be cajoled, threatened, you know, forced to adhere to the recommendations of outside. who are not involved in this conflict and don't have to live next door to a governing entity that chose to do on October 7

what Hamas chose to do. Sarah, Stephen, thank you for an important debate on an important topic. We certainly covered all the bases that I hoped we would on behalf of the Monk community. Thank you so much for your thoughts, your analysis, your insights, and for coming on the program today.

You're welcome. Well, that wraps up today's debates. I want to thank our participants, Stephen and Sarah. they certainly give us a lot to think about. Your feedback or questions on what you've just heard, as I expect many of you might well have, please send us an email to podcast at monkdebates.com. That's MUNK, Debates with ns.com.

Also, reminder, your last opportunity coming up just these next few days to grab the few remaining tickets that are available to the Monk debate on the crisis of liberalism. It's taking place in Toronto on November 3rd on stage. controversial British MP, Jacob Rees-Mogg, an American commentator, George F. Will, take on British journalists and left-wing activists, Ash Sarkar, and big American social conservative,

Sorab Amari, to debate whether liberalism is getting the big questions right or whether we need some other ideology, some other way of thinking about the world other than liberalism. We've got that debate for you. November 3rd at Roy Thompson Hall. Check out our website now, triple-wmunkdebates.com. for how to get tickets. Thank you for lending your time and attention to our efforts to bring back the art of public debate one conversation at a time. I'm your host and moderator, Ruddier-Griffis.

The Monk debates are a project of the Aurea and Peter and Melanie Monk Charitable Foundations. Rudyard Griffiths and Ricky Gerwitz are the producers. Be sure to download and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. And if you like us, feel free to give us a five-stri- rating. Thank you again for listening.