The Paikin Podcast - Is Israel’s War in Iran Illegal? | Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister & International Law Professor

Episode Date: March 17, 2026

One episode. Two very different views on the Middle East. The Deputy Foreign Minister of Israel, Sharren Haskel, joins to discuss her country’s decision to attack Iran, their strategy and endgame, as well as Israel’s conduct in Gaza. You’ll also be hearing from someone who appeared before the International Court of Justice on behalf of Palestine. That's Queen’s University international law professor and former UN official in the Middle East, Ardi Imseis. He explains why he thinks this is an illegal war and shares his view on Israel’s conduct in Gaza.   Support us: patreon.com/thepaikinpodcast Follow The Paikin Podcast: YOUTUBE: http://www.youtube.com/@ThePaikinPodcastSPOTIFY: https://open.spotify.com/show/1OhwznCIUEA11lZGcNIM4h?si=b5d73bc7c3a041b7X: x.com/ThePaikinPodINSTAGRAM: instagram.com/thepaikinpodcastBLUESKY: bsky.app/profile/thepaikinpodcast.bsky.social Email us at: [e-mail] 

Hi everybody, Steve Paken here. Today on the Paken podcast, we're going to try something very different. You are going to be hearing from two very different voices. First, the deputy foreign minister of the state of Israel, Sharon Haskell, on her country's decision to join the United States and attack Iran. We'll also talk about Israel's conduct in Gaza. You'll also hear from someone who appeared in the International Court of Justice on behalf of Palestine.

And that's Queen's University International Law. law professor and former United Nations official in the Middle East, R.D. Imsaise. He explains why he thinks this is an illegal war, and he shares his views on Gaza as well. One episode, two very different views on the Middle East. Coming up next on the Paken podcast. Let's now welcome Sharon Haskell. She is the deputy foreign minister for the state of Israel. She is a member of the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, from the party that's called Tikva Harashah, which means New Hope. She joins us from just outside Tel Aviv, and it may interest our viewers and listeners to know that Minister Haskell was born in Toronto.

So there we go. Minister, it's good to see you. How are you? It's really good to see you too. These are stressful times. These are difficult times for us. Today was very, very difficult. We had two fallen soldiers and two civilians, foreign...

not civilians, but foreigners, workers that died, you know, in a missile attack. And this was an attack in Lebanon. So it's been a difficult day for us today. We should just say as well that as you and I sit here about to do this interview, you are, I'm not complaining here, I'm just explaining, you're 45 minutes late because I gather for you to get to the place where you were going to do the interview. there were two air raid sirens and you had to pull over for periods of time to make sure nothing happened. So anyway, we're glad to see you here. Yeah, so we had to pull down from the highway and find shelter underneath a bridge and

wait until the alarms is gone. And it's a kind of a reality that we've been living in the last 10 days. Let's start with this. I want to ask you about a poll that I saw that was taken in Israel the other day, which showed that 93% of Israelis, which obviously means not only people who support the government, but also virtually all of the opposition as well, support this military action by Israel and the United States. And I want to start by having you explain to Canadians why this war would be so popular in Israel. Well, the reason why this war and this operation is agreed on is because we truly understand the danger of the fanatical regime in Iran. You know, there's one thing to say about what had happened in last few days in regards to

their neighboring countries, what they've been doing to their own people, what they've been doing the proxies in many other countries, but specifically for Israel, you know, for more than 30 years now, there are full, loud calls for the complete annihilation of the state of Israel, complete annihilation of the Jews, okay? And we're considered only the little Satan. So what happens to Israel happens later to America and Western civilization, because they do call death to Israel, death to America, death to the West. And they don't just chant that.

This is not just a slogan. It's not just some kind of a plan. They have been building for the last more than 30 years, the tools, the capability, the weapons to fulfill this. strategic plan of annihilating the state of Israel and the Jewish people and Israel. We've seen what they've done in the region. We've seen how they completely obliterate and taken over Lebanon, destroying their social fabric, their economy, their politics, the corruption.

Chisbala is an army of Iran. And so we've seen what they've done there. We see what they do in Iraq. We've seen what they've done in Yemen with the Qutis. We see what they do in Africa, in Latin America, North. America as well in Europe. And so this is a serious existential threat for us. My children are here in the front line to that. And so when we go on this operation to eliminate this existential threat long term, everybody understand what it means. And we understand we have no other choice

because the other choice is far worse than that. We should explain that even though you are in the governing coalition, you and Prime Minister Netanyahu are actually not in the same political party. There are plenty of people in Israel before this war started who did not either like or trust him. Do you trust him to prosecute this war properly? Yes, absolutely. And I have to say, I was part of the ones who were demonstrating against Netanyahu, against Netanyahu government. And it was mainly about, you know, us fighting, disagreeing, about how we want to

shape the future of Israel. Okay? But since the 7th of October, we all realized this is not about how we want to shape Israel's future and our children's future. It is whether Israel will actually exist. It is fighting on that Israel will have a future. And that's why we had to join forces, you know. And I think that if we look from a military strategy, from an operational, from a security

point of view, we are fully in agreement on that because our threats, our enemy, they seek to eliminate the states of Israel. And so this is a joint effort together to fight for our freedom, for our existence for our country. I should tell you that polls in Canada are not quite so rosy. Most Canadians oppose this war. And I think I'm on safe ground in saying even beyond that, there are probably a good chunk of Canadians who think Israel started this latest military campaign in order to distract the world from what it had done in Gaza. Could you comment on that? Oh, this is part of lies, many storytelling, blood liables, whatever you want to call it about Israel. And the fact is that many people also in Canada don't really understand the reality here in the Middle East.

You know, you're very lucky there. Very, very lucky, you know, in a way. You know, the younger generation in Canada received an incredible opportunity, democracy, freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of press, everything on a silver platter. On the fact that other generation prior to that had to pay the price in many cases in blood in order to guard this freedom, to fight for this freedom. And for us here in the Middle East, this is still a current reality. And unfortunately, I think that many in Canada do not understand the reality in the Middle East. And it is very different, not just the reality, but also the cultural aspect. And unfortunately, our neighboring countries as well.

We live in a region where radical Islamist groups and terrorist organization flourish, are taking over countries, are literally contributing. controlling, a lot of resources and are building up power to take over and to create as much destruction and death as possible. And when I say that we are fighting for our freedom, it means we're fighting for our country for the future of our children. And, you know, we've been fighting for two years in a war with six different fronts, six armies, but the source is the same source. If you look on Hamas and Chisbalah and the Qutis and the Shiye militias and Iran directly and all of these terrorist organizations, these are all armies of Iran.

These are all proxies of Iran. I want to explain just the last point that I think that many people who are opposing or trying to build up, you know, different conspiracy theories about it. I think most of what they're really angry about is that the reality is that President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu are the ones who are doing the right thing. They are the one who are actually protecting humanity. And the picture... Well, I was going to ask you about that because, yeah, because while most Western leaders,

including, I think, the Prime Minister of Canada, have described this as an illegal war, they also don't necessarily oppose the war. So what do you infer from that? So I think they tried to avoid the question. I didn't say it's an illegal war, but they say this is something for the United Nations to determine. Okay, and that's how they're trying to push away. The fact is that this war is legal, okay,

when you have an existential threat, when you have serious threat, when you see the mass destruction weapons, facility, ballistic missiles, this is a serious threat. And, you know, there isn't, an issue about the legality. It is legal. Their main problem is that, you know, and they know this is a just war. They've seen what had happened just 50 days ago where this fanatical regime have

executed and murdered in the most brutal way of its own people, its own children, teenagers, women. So I don't think any sensible person in the world can defend this fanatical. regime. I think everybody truly knows that this is one of the most just war and that, you know, that we are on the right side of history. But when one goes to war, I understand why you believe this is a just war. One does need to ask the question, though, at what cost? And as we sit here recording this, we know that at least 1,300 Iranian civilians have already been estimated to have been killed, including those kids at that school for girls. Just for the record, there's no indication Israel had anything to do with that. Looks like it was American bombs that did that.

The question becomes, is it worth all of those civilian deaths to achieve what you are trying to achieve? So look, first of all, the fact is that the RGC are using a lot of propaganda in order to build up international pressure to pressure to pressure on America and on Israel to stop this operation okay we've seen this propaganda going on and on and on and the girl's school is not propaganda you'll you'll agree that really happened right so for me i we we don't have an indication whether this thing happen or not or who's responsible for that okay and the indication of the numbers of civilian casualties, we don't have a real indication for that. Unfortunately, the IRGC, whenever there's certain difficulties for them, they cut off the

internet, they are using a lot of videos, a lot of propaganda, incorrect numbers, and I would wait until there's a proper investigation and clarification of certain events and certain numbers. And I'll say more than that. I take your point, but having said that, and I'll just answer as well, how many people did the Iranian regime killed until now. Millions of people all around the world. Millions of people in Africa where they are supporting, arming, training in Sudan, in Aritrea, in Boko Haram and al-Shabaab, and all of these ISIS terrorist organization. That's not even going through the last

almost 50 years of oppression and murder and torture of their own civilians. Look on what happened in Yemen. How many people died there? How many people died there? How many people died by their hands in Lebanon. So you are telling me that this is not a price that the world should pay in order to liberate humanity from this terrorist fanatical regime? What do you think is going to happen in 10, 15 years from now? They're just going to decide to stop? No, they are building up more power and more operation and more armies and more incitements.

And someone needs to say stop. And I think that, you know, when North Korea, there wasn't a single president who stopped them on the way to a nuclear bomb. Now it's too late. Do you want this fanatical regime where you see indiscriminately, whether it's trying to annihilate the Baha'i community, the Christian community, their own Muslim community? Do you trust a regime like that with nuclear weapon? So I'll just say this is a small price that you pay now to understand that humanity is going to be protected later on. And now over to our interview with international law professor, R.D. Imsaise. We are now pleased to be joined by Ardi Emsais.

He is an associate professor of international law at Queen's University, a former United Nations official in the Middle East, including with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, And Arty, thanks for coming on the Paken podcast. How are you doing today? I'm doing very well. Thanks for having me, Steve. It's good to be with you again. Pleasure to see you again. Yes, indeed. Let's start with this. What's your view on whether or not this war in the Middle East is legal? Yeah, if the war on Iran is very clearly, unequivocally unlawful, when we assess the legality of the use of force under international law, we need to assess it against the general prohibition on the use of force. That is the key rule. Quotified in Article 2, subsection 4 of the United Nations Charter, states may not use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of other states,

save and accept in two circumstances. Neither of those two circumstances, these exceptions to the general prohibition on the use of force, applies in this case. The first is where force is authorized by the UN Security Council. Neither Israel nor the United States sought Security Council approval, so that is off the table. The second is in self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter, and self-defense is only played out or is only available where a state uses force to defend itself against an attacked, an armed attack that has already occurred. So the terms of Article 51 require the armed attack have already occurred by a state.

And in this case, Iran did not wage an armed attack against either the United States or Israel. in certainly at all or in sufficient time, and therefore there is no right of self-defense. Interestingly, there is almost a wall-to-wall consensus among the international legal community, academics, scholars, practitioners that I've been able to discern over the past few weeks since the war began, including American scholars, the American Society of International Law, which is no friend, if you like, of the Iranian regime, making it very clear that this is an aggression and a legal use of force. One of the interesting things, though, is that as much as most of the countries around the world believe this to be an illegal war by the terms you just defined, not many are against it. And in fact, you know, Prime Minister Mark Carney's first statements on this were that he supported the attempt to make sure that Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons.

What do you make of the fact that while it may be an illegal war, there aren't that many countries out there that seem to oppose it? Well, I mean, I challenge the premise that there aren't many countries out there that seem to oppose it. I think you're right. There are a few countries that don't seem to oppose it, and these are in the global north. So Canada, the G7 countries, you know, Western Europe, etc., they've equivocated in line with the rules-based order that Prime Minister Carney was so eager to denounce at Davos. And I think that has to do with the general zeitgeist, if you like, in the international community, certainly in the West these days, which is one of trying to appease President Trump. He is erratic in his politics. I don't need to tell your listeners or your viewers about that.

But there's a common theme that these states, I surmise, have been able to identify an American foreign policy since Trump, too, has taken over. If you look at everything from Venezuela, Greenland, the United States. 51st state and Governor Carney in the view of Trump, U.S. actions against Iran and so on. There's a clear throwing into the bin by Washington, D.C., of this core norm of international law, in fact, the core norm of international law in the post-World War II era, which is the prohibition on the use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of states. So I think that Mark Carney and his colleagues in France,

the UK, Germany, and so on, are having a horribly difficult time trying to, on the one hand, placate the Trump administration for other geopolitical and bilateral reasons, economic, political, et cetera, while at the same time not wanting to be really robust in their denouncement of the war as unlawful. Now, going back to many countries in the world, as you said, I'd say that the vast majority of countries, if you were to survey foreign ministries of the 196 states in the world or thereabouts, would probably, the vast majority of their legal advisors would say this is an unlawful war. The question is, would their executive authorities allow them to do so publicly? I mean, it is unequivocally unlawful. Let me get your take on something that emerged from the parliamentary

debate, the so-called take-note debate, that happened in our House of Commons earlier, this week. And that was one after another, many conservative members of parliament stood up and said, and I'm going to paraphrase here, you know, we shouldn't be so fussed about the fact that this war may be illegal. Iran certainly does not seek United Nations approval before supporting terrorism around the world or launching military actions of its own as it has over the last many, many years. What about that argument? Yeah, I mean, not a legal argument, a clearly political argument, and one that runs counter to, as I say, the international rule of law. It wasn't so long ago, just a few years back, and I'm sure you'll remember this,

that when the Russians unlawfully invaded Ukraine, unlawfully annexed Ukrainian territory, etc., the Western states, including the conservatives here in Canada, were robust in their uniform denouncement, the imposition of sanctions. all of this sort of group of states and political actors in the West had very clear messaging, very consistent with what I've talked about, that Russia's action threatens the continuation of the rules-based international legal order because it is a war of aggression and we mustn't have any such thing. And now you have the exact opposite arguments offered up in respect of not only Iran,

the United States action against Iran and Israel's action against Iran, but also the United States action in Venezuela. So we can't have our case needed to. Well, I wonder if that's a good analogy to use, only in as much as Ukraine had never attacked Russia, Ukraine had never launched any terrorist actions against Russia. I mean, Iran is certainly responsible for many terrorist incidents that have taken place over the years. So can you really sit with that analogy very well? Well, I mean, I would put it right back to you, Steve. Can you name one for me? Like, that is to say, when has Iran launched an armed attack against the United States or Israel that qualifies as an armed attack that would justify under international law Article 51 of the UN Charter a right of self-defense in both Israel and the United States? It just hasn't.

Empirically speaking, it just hasn't. The Marine barracks, back 40 years ago, the Marine barracks when Ronald Reagan was the President of the United States, would that not count? It wouldn't as a matter of law, right? So in law, in law, the armed attack has to occur and the use of force in self-defense has to be both proportional and necessary and on the sudden. It has to actually happen. You can't, and you can make the analogy in the domestic sense. if if i was walking down the street and somebody were to attack me uh beat me up um i i can't go to the hospital wait 40 years recover and then go back to this person 40 years later kill them or

you're to return the violence and claim a right of self-defense to do so right so there are temporal aspects as well uh that is that need to be met what what about um well well Let's consider this. I wonder if under the category of self-defense, the attempt to either acquire or create one's own nuclear weapons falls in the category of, I can't wait for a nuclear attack to take place and then respond. So I'm going to take a preemptive strike because I fear that if they do get nuclear weapons, they're coming our way.

Does that gain the legitimacy at all? Yeah, a great question. there is a small number of Western academics who since 1967 have argued a right exists to preemptive self-defense. That is to say that Article 51 of the UN Charter refers to an armed attack having to have occurred, right? But what does the word occur mean? Must states wait until they are actually attacked to deploy force in self-defense? and in fact as a matter of the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice, which is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations,

and the practice overwhelmingly of states over time, no such right of preemptive self-defense exists. If indeed there was such a right of preemptive self-defense, the question arises, well, when does the attack begin? Is a threat enough? What qualifies as an attack, rather as a threat, sufficient enough to deploy force. And you can imagine that the slippery slope would allow for states to use force against each other's territorial integrity, thereby imploding the whole of the state

system as we understand it. So threats aren't enough, say, for instance, the United States and Russia both have stockpiles, and Israel, for that matter, Pakistan, India, they have stockpiles of nuclear weapons. Their possession of those weapons is clearly a threat on the international plane. because it signals to other states, hey, watch out, don't try us. At the same time, that threat isn't sufficient to trigger a right in other states, non-nuclear states, to use force against the nuclear states in, quote, preemptive self-defense. That is to say, preemptive self-defense is not a legal thing. It is a political policy view, although some minority of international scholars, law scholars,

and the Western countries take the view that it exists, as a matter of state practice and jurisprudence of the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, the World Court, the ICJ, it does not exist. So you're persuaded that you're persuaded that Iran did not represent an imminent threat to the United States. Oh, absolutely. There's no question. Not at all. Okay. What about in the case of? As you say that, forgive me, there's a meme floating about in the sort of world of the Internet with a map of Iran around it, or sort of U.S. flags, wherever the U.S. bases are across their Middle East, in the east of Iran

and in the West, in Afghanistan. There's, you know, tens of U.S. bases around them. And the meme reads, if my recollection serves, Iran wants war. Look where they put their country. Look how close they put their country to our military bases. Now, now I'm no supporter of the Islamic regime of Iran. I'm no supporter in any case in that regard of that regime. And to be sure that regime has engaged in by all accounts, human rights violations against its people. But international law on the use of force is completely agnostic. As to how states govern themselves, there is no such thing as the right to use force in preemptive defense. And in this case, empirically, there is absolutely no question. It is undebatable that Iran attacked the United States or Israel, justifying a right

of self-defense. And of course, the Israelis and the Iranians aren't even, the Americans aren't even trying to make the right of self-defense. Do the Israelis feel entitled to, or let me put it this way, do you think there was an imminent or existential threat by Iran on Israel? Not at all. There's no question about that. The Israelis are a nuclear power somewhere on the order of about 200 to 300 nuclear weapons, though we don't know the exact number by virtue of the Israeli position that they would never declare their arsenal, but it is a matter of public record now that globally that they are a nuclear power. And they are trying to impose effectively their hegemony over the region, that nobody in this region is going to have nuclear powers

but us. They feel that they require those things to ensure their survival. as a state. And so they're going to do everything they can to not only remove the regime in Tehran, which was initially Bibi Netanyahu's a goal. He's had this goal for some 40 years. It's again a matter of public record going before the Congress multiple times, multiple U.S. administrations urging regime change. But now, in my considered view, the goal is to dismember Iran in very much the same way that Syria has been dismembered, that Libya has been dismembered, that a number of other countries in the region have been dismembered and rendered completely vulnerable by Western action over a number of years. Take, for instance, when the Assad regime fell to what

was once the head of ISIS in Iraq, who is now the president of Syria, when it fell, the Western states, including the United States and the Israelis, ran to support them militarily. But the The first 10 days after the fall of the Assad regime in Syria, the Israelis also did something else in Syria. They bombarded the country to Smith-Rines. They destroyed Syria's attempt, a mechanized force, their whole armed force, their regular armed forces were destroyed. And the goal, of course, is to make the states around Israel completely unable to threaten

the Israeli side. And that's their approach. in my read, in my political read, the geopolitical read of what's actually happening. We'll be back right after this. And now over to our interview with Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister, Sharon Haskell. I take your point, Minister. I understand what you're saying. I have not talked to a single Canadian, and I've talked to a lot,

who are shedding any tears at all for the death of the former Supreme Leader in Iran. I don't hear anybody defending the conduct of the Iranian government, which is a brutal theocracy. That's not the question and that's not the point. I'm going to read something here by Raul Woodliff, which you may have seen in the times of Israel not too long ago, in which he writes, nuclear prevention, preemption, regime change, liberation, deterrence, regional realignment. These are not variations of a single strategy. They point toward different outcomes and different end dates. They are different conflicts, different wars. Iran is not Gaza, the stakes are broader, and the consequences harder to contain.

That alone requires a level of candor we have not yet been given. The objective has not been defined in a way that is clear, coherent, and singular. Until that happens, the war remains not only dangerous, but directionless. Tell us, if you would, comment on that, on what you believe to be the goal of this war and whether you think it has been clearly articulated. So first of all, I don't know this person. I don't know his political background or his political ideology. But obviously, you know that every opinion piece is not necessarily written, not by expert and not free of political agendas. Okay. This is the first. The second one, look,

the goal of the war is to prevent and to eliminate the long-term existential threat. It's a long-term existential threat over the state of Israel. Okay? And what we're doing now is... So that means regime change, I assume. Look, we are eliminating most of the military power and the capability of the Iranian regime. We are eliminating a lot of the masterminds who have pushed this deadly master plan of annihilation. And many people that have participated in the active destruction and murder and killing or certain people with certain expertise who have developed the military programs

in order to build up mass destruction weapons. Okay. And I believe that when we do that, those measures that they've used against the Iranian people and the way they've used it 50 days ago is not going to be there. There's already cracks within the regime. and I think that once we're done with it, this will be the opportunity for the Iranian people, yes, to liberate themselves, to take back control to their life and, you know, and to free themselves from these fanatics. I would just point out, you know, regime change happened in Libya. I'm not sure what's happening there now is better. regime change happened in Syria. Is it better now? Maybe it is. I don't know that people in Lebanon would say that.

Afghanistan had regime change. Things are certainly not better there. You don't always get, you know, Jeffersonian democracy once you get rid of a government that's in place that you don't like. And I wonder whether you are concerned about what will come next. Yes, but you may not get regime change. You may get something worse next. Who knows? Of course. And we understand that, but there's also different example, whether it is South Sudan who was liberating itself. you know, or Somaliland, and look what they're doing, you know. And there's many other example that you can try and bring out as well. And not everything is perfect, you know, and we keep our eyes open.

But I think that with the Iranian people fighting for democracy, and that's what they were marching down the streets, they weren't marching for a fanatical, religious other tyrant. Okay? They want liberation. They want a democracy. They want those values that me and you are sharing. Okay.

And when you look on Syria and the people who have actually pushed the change of regime, those are ex-ISIS, ex-Khizboutel-Tahrir and ex-Jabat al-Nusah terrorists. And we said from the start, and Israel has warned the West, it is your representatives of government who have opened the path and the door for this, you know, Al Jolani, while we were trying and telling you to take a lot of cautious because this is a terrorist. And until he proven that he participate in a proper democracy and that other minorities will share the power together and that he can protect and defend minorities, he shouldn't be trusted.

But unfortunately, it is your government and other European governments and more who have actually opened the path and the door to him. We didn't think it was right and we warned you about it. And so, you know, in our changing Middle East, with a very different reality from what you know in Europe or in Canada, it's a different culture. But I truly believe that, you know, with the Iranian people having enough from a fanatical religious extremism, trying to open a path for democracy and that's what the people want. you know, I think there's a far greater opportunity for a great change of regime that will change, you know, the entire future of the Middle East.

We hope that maybe one day we can be good neighbors and visit one another and there'll be peace and prosperity. That would be a wonderful thing. I think most of the questions I hear, though, coming out of journalists in the United States and Canada, is it's all well and good to start a war to get rid of a regime that you can't stand and that represents an existential threat to your country. But what comes next? What happens after the fighting is over? Can you really be sure that something is going to replace it

that knows how to run a country, that knows how to be allies with Israel and the West? It doesn't sound like from, well, I mean, here's a comment from Ann Applebaum, who I suspect you do know. She said, I don't know what the White House expected when U.S. and Israeli forces began bombarding Iran, but they seem not to have anticipated the global impact of their actions. The Iranian regime did not collapse quickly.

Iranian drones and missiles hit U.S. bases and consulates and also damaged civilian targets across the Gulf states. Nobody in the U.S. administration seems to have given much thought to mitigating this kind of collateral damage, let alone the deaths and sufferings of civilians in Iran. The attitude is rather, and this is her view, let's drop the bombs and then see what happens. Are you concerned there hasn't been enough thought put towards what happens when the war is over? Look, I'm not concerned because I trust my government and I trust the president of the United States, far more than what I trust those tyrants in Iran.

I don't think you understand the reality here in the Middle East. I don't think she truly understand the reality of Iranians in Iran. I don't think she understand the reality in Lebanon, Iraq, in Africa, in Sweden or England, or even 700 IRGC who fled into Canada, not a Zarbizade, not Turkey, not Qatar, Canada, when they were worried for their lives. I don't think she understand what's happening in Central and South America, in Latin America, where Chisbalah, the army of Iran,

is actually controlling most of the illegal drugs and weapons trafficking routes, gaining more than 30% of their income from the operation in Latin America. don't think she understand that this regime has armies all around the world, and for years now, have been killing millions of people. So no, I don't see any other worse situation than this regime. The former head of the Iran branch in the Israeli defense intelligence has said, quote, if we can have a coup, great. If we can have people on the streets, great. If we can have a civil war, great. Israel couldn't care less about the future. or the stability of Iran.

That's the end of the quote. And guess my question is, do you think chaos and the creation of it in Iran is the mission here? Oh, absolutely. There's no question in my mind. And that's actually rather forthright,

but not unique to this individual, this Israeli leader. Israelis have, as a matter of public record, been extremely open over many decades of what their goal is. They regard themselves most safe in a region where those around them are in complete and utter disarray. They disagree obviously with the political views of the regime in Tehran as it currently stands,

but it won't be enough for regime change. They want to dismember the state. That would be their goal. And they're trying to get Americans to do it for them in tandem with them. And that's a real question for the United States and whether or not that's in the U.S. interest. many observers have criticized certainly Donald Trump, but even to some extent, Bibi Netanyahu, with the allegation that the war doesn't have a clearly defined objective. And Netanyahu's stated goal has been to, quote, remove the existential threat posed by the terrorist regime in Iran.

Is that a, I guess, is that not a clearly defined goal in your books? Yeah, it certainly is from the regime in Tel Aviv. There's no question about that. They've been very clear about what it is they want. You won't get the clarity from Washington, and that's the problem. I actually think that this war is being driven by Tel Aviv, and the pressure that its leaders as well as its proxies and supporters in the United States, in particular, had placed on the White House.

Why would America go along with that? Well, I mean, for a number of domestic political reasons, quite frankly, I mean, the strength of the Israel lobby, you can see John Mearsheimer on this or Stephen Walt, who wrote a book called the Israel lobby some years ago on this, is immense. And at the same time, the stars have aligned because on the American side, there are a good number of folks who do believe wholeheartedly that going to war with Iran and removing the regime. and doing all of those things is in the U.S. interest, you have people like Pete Hengseth, for instance, the so-called Secretary of War. So you've got hawks and neocons now around Trump, but he's effectively, in my view, being used as a tool. The fellow can't even find Iran on a map. So it's the people around him in the White House that are sort of going along with this. And quite frankly, it makes little sense, especially, for instance, when you think

about U.S. relationships with the Gulf states on the Arab side. I mean, they have very strong relations. There's this move and push towards the Abraham Accords, however anyone might feel about them before all of this kicked off. And the Iranians have taken the opportunity to sort of try their best to impose a cost on Washington and Israel for this folly. And that cost is to prolong the war. So you'll see, I think, the United States Trump to try and, he'll try and remove himself from this over the course of some time, maybe two, three weeks. He's already sort of put out trial balloons to that effect. And the Iranians aren't going to allow him to do that. They're going to try and prolong this and impose a cost, economic, also diplomatic.

That's why they're attacking America's supporters in the Arab world in the Gulf, right? They want to send a message to these Arab states, hey, look, if you want strategically to align yourself, to align yourself, with Washington and Tel Aviv is going to be a cost here. Think twice. And I think that's the game being played by the Iranian side because they realized that there is no credibility in Trump. His word is worthless. From the JCPOA, the U.S. pulled out of the Iran deal that was negotiated by Obama in 2015. The U.S. pulled out of it in 2017. Then, yeah, that is the Trump, the Trump administration did. And then the attempt to negotiate just under the auspices of the Almany leadership just before this war kicked off on the 20th of February, the Iranians have no reason to believe that the U.S.'s word is going to be credible in any negotiation. So they're thinking, diplomacy only has its limits.

We're going to prolong this so that the U.S. and its partner in Tel Aviv can feel, and indeed the world, can feel an economic impact. such that there will be a deterrent, if you like, of doing this again. I take your point on all that, but let me ask you a broader question here, which is to say, you know, it's pretty conclusively determined that Iran has been an exporter of what in the West we call terrorism through Hezbollah, in Lebanon against Israel, through Hamas, through Gaza against Israel, certainly the events of two and a half years ago on October 7th definitely seemed to have been aided and abetted by Iran. What should we expect Western countries to do about a regime that exports terrorism

and is responsible for supporting some of the most heinous attacks on civilians that we have ever seen? Yeah, a great question. So I, you know, this is where I wear my international law hat. I always think that adherence to and fidelity to the international legal order is the way out. So for instance, you know, you sign a treaty, you have to adhere to its terms in good faith. You can't use force against the territorial integrity and political independence of states. You can't also abuse the rights of your own population, as we have been seeing.

certainly in Iran and the calls for reform there. So all of this can be answered with reference to international law. And I don't think we can equate, for instance, the attacks from Hezbollah on Israel with attacks of Palestinian paramilitaries on Israel as one and the same thing, just because the Iranians are supporting them diplomatically or even with arms.

So, for instance, the uses of force that emanate from South Lebanon against Israel actually trigger the interoperating, international law governing the use of force and rights in Israel to use force in self-defense vis-a-vis. So can I understand you guys? Not his, not Hezbo law, but the state of Lebanon. But do you support then what Israel is doing in South Lebanon right now to take on Hezbollah? Oh, no, no, I don't. I wouldn't, I wouldn't do that because use of force is not a good idea. The Israelis are now occupying Lebanon, and they have been occupying Lebanon for a good number

decades, right? So this doesn't mean that the Lebanese don't have an opportunity or a right to use force to dislodge the Israeli occupying. power, you just have to do so in accordance with international law. On the Palestinian side, and of course, a non-state armed group using Lebanese territory to do that is not the way, is not consistent with international law. Let me go at this again. I want to make sure I understand this. Hang on a second. Hang on. I mean, Hezbollah has lobbed bonds into northern Israel. So that does seem to me anyway to meet the test that you put earlier of having been attacked. Given that, does international law then not provide a cover for the Israelis to go in and, you know,

do something about Hezbollah, even if they're in Lebanon. Right. So here the Israeli claim is against Lebanon, not Hezbollah, as a matter of international law, right? That would be it. But to the extent that the Lebanese are allowing their territory to be used by an armed group to wage attacks against Israel, then the question is, is Lebanon an ally to Iran? in doing so. And is Iran, if they are using Hezbollah and Lebanon to do the attack, actually engaged in self-defense, collective self-defense on behalf of the Iranian regime

that has been attacked unlawfully by Israel? This is how international law would work that question out. It's territorially, right? States may not engage in armed force against the territorial integrity and political independence of any state. And the acts of any non-state armed group in a state that uses the territory of that state to wage armed attacks on others are attributable to the territorial state from the place where that armed attack takes place. Now, on the Palestinian side, right, Israel has been, the International Court of Justice has determined on the 19th of July in 2024 that Israel's continued use of force, meaning its continued occupation running from 1967 to the present, is unlawful.

It's an unlawful use of force. But they left Gaza for a little while. No, I'm talking now about international law, right? So the International Court of Justice has determined that Israel's ongoing occupation of the occupied Palestinian territory, which includes the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip is unlawful. It violates Article 2, subsection 4 of the U.N. Charter and the general prohibition on the use of force and the prohibition to acquire force through force, to acquire territory through force. So because of that, because they're very presence in the occupied Palestinian territory, in including the Gaza Strip, is unlawful. Palestinians have a right to use force to dislodge that occupation. However, and this is a key point. When you use force, that is to say, the right to use force is separate from how force is used. This is extremely important for us to understand.

There are two different bodies of international law governing force. The right to use it versus and in addition to how force is used. That's right. So the how you use it is IHL, internationally humanitarian law. And to the extent that Palestinian paramilitary groups, say on the 7th of October, or indeed any other day, use force against civilians and civilian objects, well, those are criminal acts. Those are war crimes and so on, right, for which individual criminal responsibility would normally flow. The same is true with the attacks of Hezbollah on Israel. The same is true, indeed, with the Israeli and American attacks on Iran to the extent that they hit civilians and civilian objects. not only are they engaged in an aggression under the law governing the right to use force, Article 2,

subsection 4 of the charter, but they're also violating IHL principles. So you have these two different bodies of law that operate in tandem with one another, and the controlling one is the law governing the right to use force, and Israel has no right to be an occupied Palestine. It just doesn't, as a matter of international law governing the use of force. Their obligation is to withdraw. You ask me this question, well, what do we do in these circumstances? and I invoked international law. So what to do? First, the U.S. and Israeli aggression must stop any state against Iran, any state that aides or assists that aggression, including Canada, must cease immediately that aid or assistance.

We're not doing anything, are we? Well, I mean, there was an article in the Toronto Star, I think, on the third day of the war by a former Canadian general who indicated that. just as a matter of course, the Canadian Armed Forces are embedded in the Fifth Fleet and in Qatar at the Al-Udeid base as part of their relationship with the United States. And they engage in engagement with military technology. They help with target acquisition. I don't think Canada has openly said, hey, yeah, we've sent our forces there. But it is a matter of record that we have people on the ground embedded and under U.S. command there. So this triggers because they're agents of Canada under international law, this triggers Canada's responsibility. But all is to say on the

Israeli-Palestinian side and Lebanese side, the way to end that is for the Israelis to withdraw from the occupied Palestinian territory. They're not sovereign there. As per the ICJ, July 19, 2004, you can have your viewers check that out. And they've no right to be there in any portion of the territory nor to settle it or any of that. And the same is true in occupied Lebanon. They have no right to be there. It is respect for international law that I would suggest to you that is the measurement or the yardstick that will help us arrive at Pacific dispute settlement, where war is not the order of the day, but peace is. And that's the better way to find peace than, you know, war and aggression and so on. And now over to our interview

with Israel's deputy foreign minister, Sharon Haskell. Okay, I want to ask you a question actually now about the city where you were born, which is Toronto. And it was just a matter of a few days ago when somebody in the middle of the night took out a gun and shot about five bullet holes through the front door and windows of a synagogue. And this was not the first time this happened in our community. And I just wonder whether or not there is any discussion in the cabinet of Israel, in the war cabinet, in senior circles in Israel, about what these actions might be provoking. elsewhere in the world to Jewish communities elsewhere.

Oh, look, those actions have nothing to do with a provocation unless you want to blame Netanyahu for everything that is happening in this world. And I don't think that someone taking a gun shooting towards a synagogue or a school or the massacre in Bondi Beach has anything to do with the government of Israel or Israel actions. And if, anyone tries to implies that, it's absolutely outrageous and disgusting. Antisemitism is a mental disease, okay? And the fact, the rise of anti-Semitism, there's always an excuse for that. And it doesn't matter whether there is this war or not, whether Jews are being blamed for

Corona or whether Jews are being blamed for communism or Jews are being blamed for capitalism. or Jews are being blamed for all the disease in Europe and get out of Europe or Jews are being blamed for all the disease in the Middle East and tell them get out of Israel. There is always an excuse for that mental disease of anti-Semitism. Okay. And what has been happening in Canada and the rise of anti-Semitism. And I tell you, as a Canadian born, as a Canadian born, as someone who has family and friends and relatives in Canada where we are so concerned with trying

to do everything in our capability to try and keep the Jewish community safe. And you know what is leading to that? The lack of actions and fight against anti-Semitism. Because when you let that loose, when you don't enforce when the government doesn't draw a red line, when the police is not enforcing or investigating in depth. When someone is being caught with a hate crime or a violent crime against a Jew is not being prosecuted or charged like any other one who would have been charged for a crime of racism or violence against a minority, this draw a path of acceptance of legitimacy to hurt and harm Jews. And when in the last two years, There's been multiple shootings towards Jewish businesses and synagogues and Jewish schools.

And just in the last three days. And the police have no lead? Okay. This is a serious, serious problem. And I believe, and I've been warning now for a year, the Canadian authorities, I've been doing interviews about it, writing opinion pieces to warn the government of Canada that this is going to end in bloodshed. And if they don't draw the red line now, not words, actions.

Words are not going to help anymore. Only actions, this is going to end in bloodshed. Minister, I do want to, I mean, I'll acknowledge this is a bit of an odd question. And I don't know how religious you are. But for those who read the Bible and know the Bible, Bible, this war has started around the same time as a Jewish holiday called Purim, which celebrates the victory of the ancient Jewish people over, coincidentally enough, an Iranian dictator who tried to eliminate the Jews of the Middle East thousands of years ago. And I wonder if,

well, how much connection are people in Israel making to what took place in the Bible and what's going on today? Oh, wow, a lot. And I want to even go further, you know, what would the name of the person, you know, in the Persian kingdom, how he was called, the one who was trying to annihilate the people of Israel. He was called Heemal. Haman. And right now, the leader is Haminae, which is very, very similar between the two names. Hamin. And unfortunately, I think, and as someone who is spiritual and do believe in the Bible, I think that since the 7th of October, we've seen signs in the Bible and many prophecies

that describe exactly the situation, many prophets who are trying to warn us and to try and tell us of what is to come. And here and now, you know, as we are the people of the book and, you know, history, is so important for us, knowing that, you know, the Israeli people, the sons and the daughters of the people of Israel are now helping and rescuing, really, the people of great Cyrus. Cyrus is an immense, immense meaning responsibility, part of a fulfillment of a special mission

and that we feel that is upon us as well. And, you know, the story of Esther and Mordechai and Haman and, you know, in the kingdom in Persia is a lesson for us that we've been studying every single year. And unfortunately, you know, when the saying history repeats itself, for us it's one after another one after another one and I think part of my responsibility is those stories that my grandparents have been telling me about you know atrocities that were committed towards them and persecution and learning from it understanding what an important piece of history is Israel for the Jewish people I mean our homeland

where we are able to defend ourselves, by ourselves, not at a mercy of a government or ruler, and we are able to protect our children. And how important that is for our existence, for our people's existence. You've been very generous with your time. You did mention October 7th in that last answer, so I'll just finish up by asking a couple of more things about what's happened since then. I did go to Israel a few months ago. I did go to the kibbutz and to the site of the music festival where the atrocities of

October 7th took place. It's heartbreaking to see what took place there two and a half years ago. Yeah. Having said that, I do want to ask you whether Israel stands by how it responded to the events of October 7th in Gaza. Absolutely. I mean, you know, on the most... you know, basic instinct or whatever it is, if your daughter would have been brutally murdered

or raped, brutally abducted into the dungeons of torture of Hamas, some of them for two years, being raped, being tortured in the most horrifying ways, what would you do in order to bring her back home. And that is the question that every human being should ask himself. We are a people who value and cherish life that guard life as one of the most important sanctities. And we would do the world for every single living individual here. And unfortunately, we are dealing with a death court where death is one of the highest goals in their life, in their religion, in their ideology, the war could have never started. I mean, we gave Hamas an ultimatum, and that was, you know, it took us almost three weeks to set the first operation, even to go into

Gaza. And we told them, put your arms down and give us back our hostages and we will not enter Gaza. and they refused. And every single time there was a diplomatic path, Israel said yes. It is Hamas that kept on declining and saying no. And, you know, this is a reality.

But are you comfortable in saying that the response, sure, were you comfortable in, are you comfortable today in saying that you don't think Israel's response was disproportionate to the original crime? What is a proportionate respond. Can you show me one just war in history that was exactly proportional? What do you want us to do? To go to a festival in Gaza and kill exactly 1,200 young teenagers who are dancing to rape exactly 500 little

girls, to abduct exactly 250 Palestinians and torture them? What is the ridiculous? an absurd idea of proportionality. I mean, it is insanity. There wasn't a single Palestinian who would have been dead today if it wasn't for Hamas. If Hamas would have laid down their weapon and brought back the hostages,

not a single Palestinian in Gaza. And the fact is that every life that was lost in Gaza is on the responsibility of Hamas and Hamas alone. We are fighting a death cult. So when you hear allegations, including from some Israelis and some Israeli human rights scholars, that genocide took place in Gaza, how do you respond? I will say very clearly, all these people are political activists and pro-Palestinian activists who have many of them supported Hamas throughout the years.

And unfortunately, Hamas is a terrorist organization. And it doesn't care for the life of Israelis. doesn't care for the lives of Palestinians. And the best thing that can happen to the Palestinians is that Hamas is removed from its power. And anyone that doesn't understand that, it's just not sensible. He's talking from a political position and we've seen that. Or it has a very deep hatred towards Israel and towards Jews. But it is a political position.

That's it. Yeah, I mean, I'm not surprised that she would take that view on behalf of the Israeli government. in the end, genocide is a legal category. It's a term of art. And there is an international convention, the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, which defines genocide as a number, a series of acts, killing members of a group, imposing measures on a group designed to destroy them in whole or in part, inflicting bodily, now I'm just doing this off the top my head, inflicting bodily injury on members of the group, a serious bodily injury or something to that effect, and so on, accompanied with an intent, with evidence of intent to destroy

members of a racial, religious ethnic, political, racial, religious group as such. I don't have the treaty in front of me. And of course, there's a case haven't been brought by South Africa against Israel under the Genocide Convention and Israel's defending itself. And on the 26th of January, 2004, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations determined that Israel is plausibly engaged in genocide against the Palestinian people of Gaza. The matter will be heard on the merits. The court will take some years to decide the matter. But of course, in the interim period, between that time and now, a number of international

organizations have determined already that Israel is engaged in genocide. To begin with Israel's major human rights organization, you know, the standard of a human rights organization in Israel itself, an Israeli Jewish organization, Betzelam, has determined that it is a genocide. Palestinian NGOs have determined that it is a genocide. The United Nations Commission of Inquiry headed by Navi Pile, former South African judge, a former High Commissioner for Human Rights of the United Nations, a judge ad hoc at the International Court of Justice has determined that it is a genocide. The U.N. Special Rapporteur on the question of Palestine has determined that it's a genocide.

Human rights watch. Amnesty International. It goes on and on. So it does. It's not enough to say that this is a political claim. The Israelis have an obligation to demonstrate that as a matter of international law and this definition of genocide, that they're not engaged in it. And that's a pretty tough bar, frankly. Having said that, and let me sneak one last question in here, you used to work for UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which was exposed not too long ago with having had employees who collaborated with Hamas. And I wonder whether that gives you some understanding of why Israel isn't too high on the United Nations and may have wanted to attack Gaza.

Yeah, no, the question collapses a number of things. the good news is that the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine refugees has dealt with these claims against it definitively. The matter was determined by the International Court of Justice in an advisory opinion delivered in October 2025 on UNRWA, effectively, and the court made it very clear that these allegations by Israel, that upwards, I think the allegations are upwards of about 12% or thereabouts, of UNRWA staff are themselves Hamas members, that these allegations are not made out, that Israel's claims are not substantiated, and that in the face of the inability to substantiate

these claims, Israel has an obligation to support the United Nations on the ground in the Gaza Strip, including supporting the work of UNRWA. Now, why did Israel make these claims? Well, they're making these claims because they want to destroy the Gaza Strip. And UNRWA, is pretty much the only force, if you like, the only presence in the Gaza Strip that provides what we call quasi-governmental services. That is to say, health, education, relief in social services, and so on. And in the circumstances, why would you want, if you're the Israelis and you want effectively to ethnically cleanse the Gaza Strip, why would you want UNRWA to be present in that territory? So you attack it.

And that's precisely what they did. Hundreds of installations that belong to UNRWA, hundreds of UNR staff, all of them targeted and killed by the occupying power, all this in violation of international law. I have said earlier the International Court of Justice has made these determinations, and some of your listeners might say, oh, well, that's just an international court. They're just esoteric bodies. No, 15 judges, one American, one German, one French, one Japanese, one Chinese, I mean, one Australian, and so on. This is an international court of this most senior jurists in the world who looked at this question,

and determined that in fact Israel's claims against UNRWA have not been substantiated, have not been substantiated. That's Rdi M.Sace. He's a professor of international law at Queen's University in Kingston, and we are grateful that you spent so much time with us here on the Paken podcast today. Thank you. Thank you so very much, Steve. So let's finish up on this, then.

What would you like to see going forward in Gaza? Well, I think that, you know, we've been working on Trump's plan, understanding. And he's right. I think if anything, he's been understanding more of the Middle East than most other leaders,

Western democracy leaders. And his plan is outside of the box and we are still waiting for Hamas to respond so that we can go into the second stage. And it starts by them disarming. And once they disarm, then there's a 20 points plan

of Trump for reconstruction. in Gaza. And I think this is something that we should try because whatever was tried until now have completely failed. I know Trump's understand better than Middle East. I know we understand our concerns and our security concerns. He truly understand who we're dealing with as well. And so I think this is something that we do need to give a chance. Understood. That's the Deputy Foreign Minister for the State of Israel, Sharon Haskell. And we're very grateful to you for spending so much time with us here on the Paken podcast. Many thanks.

With great pleasure. And thank you very much for inviting me.