Ken Roth - We Have It Out! Human Rights Watch Director Counters Charge of Anti-Israel Bias.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 гру 2023
- He walks off after about 35 minutes of a 60-minute interview. In our view, this is an expose of the deep bias that permeates Human Rights Watch. You be the judge.
Roth even goes as far as to claim that Israeli soldiers knowingly shot at people speaking in Hebrew.
Ironically, we also offer an apology to Norman Finkelstein here.
This is quite an episode.
04:44 Dershowitz was unfair to Finkelstein
13:05 Roth Intro
16:02 Proportionality
47:59 Israel Shoots White Flags and its Own Hostages
Podcast@ComedyCellar.com
Chairman of HRW repudiates Ken Roth: www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/op...
Danielle Haas HRW letter or resignation: / 1727452511408152934
HRW on Palestinian White Flag Deaths: www.hrw.org/report/2009/08/13...
HRW on Iraq: www.hrw.org/report/2003/12/11...
HRW - Needless Deaths in the Gulf War: www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/19...
KEN ROTH refers us to these sources:
“Munitions experts say 2,000 pound bombs are almost never used by the U.S. military anymore in densely populated areas.” www.nytimes.com/2023/12/21/wo...
2,000-pound bombs are normally used sparingly by Western militaries, experts say, because of their potential impact on densely populated areas like Gaza. International humanitarian law prohibits indiscriminate bombing.
Marc Garlasco a former US defense intelligence analyst and former UN war crimes investigator, said the density of Israel’s first month of bombardment in Gaza had “not been seen since Vietnam.” …“You’d have to go back to the Vietnam war to make a comparison,” said Garlasco. “Even in both Iraq wars it was never that dense.”
The US dropped a 2,000-pound bomb only once during its fight against ISIS - the most recent Western war on a militant group in the Middle East. It fell on the so-called caliphate’s self-declared capital of Raqqa in Syria.
www.cnn.com/gaza-israel-big-b...
Around 90% of the munitions Israel dropped in Gaza in the first two weeks of the war were 1,000 to 2,000-pound satellite-guided bombs, a senior US military official told The Times.
Garlasco noted that these bombs are "really big" and are being used on a large scale despite Israel also having thousands of smaller bombs from the United States that are designed to minimize damage.
By comparison, US military officials felt that the 500-pound aerial bomb was too large to use on most Islamic State targets in urban parts of Mosul, Iraq, and Raqqa, Syria.
www.businessinsider.com/israe...
The cases you cited were from the first Gulf War. The US was lambasted for the harm they caused to civilians (by Human Rights Watch and others) and largely stopped. - Розваги
The entire preamble was a pathetic justification of war crimes
How so?
@@comedycellarclipsso you think it’s ok to drop bombs on schools and hospitals if there was a Hamas member there. I’m sure you wouldn’t agree to bomb if your child was in a school where Hamas terrorist were hiding.
Both the woman and the interviewer are having cognitive dissonance. Like just the thought of them when they are close to figuring out that their beloved military might have intentionally shot those guys. Those guys were trying to show that they aren’t a threat and we’re still killed
Next time you are there. Why don’t you go to the West Bank ?
@@comedycellarclipsput yourself in the Palestinians shoes. You will understand why they did October 7th.
What war crimes?
If only the civilians came out unarmed waving white flags - oh wait.
What a heartless monster you must be.
🤣🤣🤣
Oh ya
lol good point
The issue is that Hamas does the same. How do you differentiate? almost every single video THEY release they're in civilian clothing. and they release plenty of footage of them pretending to be civilians and just walking around.
They literally brag about it and about trying to lure the IDF into buildings by pretending there are hostages in there with recordings.
Especially when it's supposedly an evacuated area where heavy fighting started and Hamas uses those tactics, how would you manage thousands of soldiers to not make a single mistake in those circumstances?
Noam: "Gallant didn't call them human animals!"
Ken: "He did. Watch the clip."
Noam: "He didn't! I can play it for you!"
*Plays a clip of Gallant calling them human animals*
😂😅😅😅 This is very funny
He was referring to hamas and it's pretty obvious.
@@snoopcelev1590 , of course because the blockade only affects Hamas, everybody knows that.
@@kimiopn sanctions against Russia affects all Russians, so?
@@snoopcelev1590 so the blockade can only affect Hamas. Everyone else can teleport through it easy. The lack of sense from people who are online is astounding. No, he wasn't referring to Hamas, unless only Hamas needs food, water, electricity, and shelter. Those are things YOU AND I NEED. I guess we're a part of Hamas too, huh?
How incredibly demonic.
Noam’s mental gymnastics to deny a genocide are honestly pathetic. The definition of an apologist for immorality
I'm kinda sick and tired of comments like this. Why not just tell me specifically what I said that was factually inaccurate or illogical... Roth avoided every basic and fair question. He got his facts wrong. He even defended tweeting out inaccurate reports. And you're attacking me?
@@comedycellarclips
1.He responded to most of your questions and follow-ups, but somehow, you seemed to overlook his answer. I believe that's the main reason he is becoming increasingly impatient. For instance, when you asked, 'How many deaths are proportional?'"
2.The report is very accurate. you are lying to yourself.
@@comedycellarclipsyou’re rationalizing why it’s ok to drop 2,000 pound bombs on babies seriously listen to the words coming out of your mouth
@@quinnebben2608thanks ❤
@@comedycellarclips No need to respond to straw man arguments like those.
The interview starts at 13:05 if you want to skip through Noam’s bad faith propagandistic intro
The standards are very clear Noam. They're called the Geneva Conventions. They may not be clear to you or to Israel or to the United States, but it's clear to every other nation and and the majority of the people around the world.
Yup, it seem absurd every time there's a UN resolution that the rest of the world would want a ceasefire and only US and Israel consistently vetoes against. Once that logic doesn't compute pro-Israeli will straight go to the holocaust and the rest of the world is anti-semite card.
you must not have watched the interview
The standards aren't clear at all actually, David. If you want to go by the Geneva Conventions, I'll entertain you. The Geneva Conventions does NOT prohibit the use of bombs even when civilians are present. In fact, the Geneva Conventions also leave it very vague - it doesn't give a strict number of civilians, instead what it says can be summarized as, "If the attack is expected to cause a loss of civilian life, which would be excessive in relation to the military advantage anticipated, then the attack would not be lawful".
You can point to the Geneva Conventions all you want but they too leave it up to subjective pros and cons and it's therefore completely valid question for Noam to ask the LEADING HRC FIGURE, probably the one person who should be able to anser these questions, what that subjective line is for him.
Perhaps try learning more about the Geneva Conventions before you invoke it and completely discredit your point.
Watched it and watched several dozens other interviews plus lectures on the subject by people like Ilan Pappe, Noam Chomsky, Gideon Levy, Gabor Mate, Miko Peled and Prof Norm Finkelstein too. Also, testimonies from ex-IDF soldiers from Breaking the Silence. Still believe that Israel commits war crimes.
@@nazimbahrin3638 wow so you watxhed all the people who are against and hate Israel? I've also watched ALL of those people and lectures. They are biased at best and radically anti Israel to point of advocating erasure of the state of israel. Your not smart for listing all the JEWS that are anti Israel. Don't you find that interesting 🤔 Israel is treated unfairly. 15 in resolutions in one year and other countrires like Iran and North Korea have one. That is just one example of the double standard. And lol it's another Jew that is head of the most anti Israel bias.
And the break the silence - I've watch it too .and we can say there's a horrid situation but not decide Israel is inherently racist. Without understanding the massacres that the Palestinian Arabs have been doing to Jews since before Israel even existed- the Chevron massacre go explain that - there's been killing on both sides but unfortunately more often then not maybe 90% of the massacres were started by the Arabs. Then when Israel became strong and used it's military might to occupy there hostile neighbors over the years of no solution to the violence and terrorism there's a terrible human crisis to those individuals and it's horrific. I truly mean horrific. The status quo needs to go. But. I don't blame Israel. Even for the inhumane treatment that happens. I don't agree with it and It needs to end. And agree there govt in power isn't keen on it and I don't blame them. Who would want to empower a group bell bent on your destruction . Or do you think they're are all taught peace and rainbows? There's systematically taught to hate and not only kill but ASPIRE to kill Jews. Make peace with an enemy like that. Give them a state. Give them an army. Why the fuck would they facilitate another Islamic regime? Does it take away the problem of the occupation no it doesn't it's a fucked up problem. Anyone who blames Israel completely is in my opinion a Jew hater. Its the only explanation to focus on Israel more than other countries who have done way worse things -who ARE currently doing way worse things but don't get world wide protests. Tell me you hate Jews without telling me you hate Jews
I'm not taking sides here, but this wasn't an interview; it was basically a monolog by the interviewer. I don't think he was allowed to speak more than 10 minutes. I would've walked out too.
@piruz3243 “I’m not taking sides here…”
Proceeds to take sides.
@@EytanKoch
Really? Which side did I take? Actually, I do agree with a lot of what the interviewer said, but I still say he was too eager to prove his points. He basically made a presentation rather than conduct an interview. Regardless of how odious you think the interviewee is, when you invite him, at least have the courtesy to let him speak.
@@piruz3243 OK, my bad.
19:35 The guy got mad when the interviewer asked him a very pertinent and very legitamte question.
@@piruz3243 what’s wrong with holding people accountable to their distorted words ?
Hey Noam, in all these apologist arguments you have concocted, are you ever gonna discuss that at the basis of this conflict, there was a meticulously planned landgrab and ethnic cleansing, on which all legitimacy of Palestinian resistance rests, much more than it rests on the inherent monstrosity of their resistance fighters ? Their land was actually stolen. Since you do all these deep dives, since you pick fights with the director of Human Rights Watch, who excellently documented sadistic IDF violence during the peaceful 'March of Return' borderprotests, the random mortarfire on kids playing soccer on gaza beach, or the bullet in the head of Shireen Abu Akleh reporting from the West Bank (not a single question asked about this), yet pal around with Alan Dershowitz, it might be good to recognize at least once the reality of the Nakba as a cornerstone of the issue you pretend to examine, when you defend the use of 10 000 dumb bombs on an area the size of Gaza, under the presumption that you are being fairminded. Are you ever gonna discuss Netanyahu's deliberate policy of turning Israel away from Rabbin's peace process, from any and all 1 or 2-states solution perpetuating the occupation and building up and funding Hamas Mosks through Mossad money-transfers, but refusing to talk to them once they got elected, despiting witnessing like the rest of the world how former IRA members in Ireland metamorphosed from terrorist leaders to governing partners in Northern Ireland.
If you are gonna add in these edits in post-production, you might want to give the person in the debate the option to do the same.
I'm skipping all his edits. Such bad faith to do that.
@@richardchampion8529same. ridiculous. it’s like he can’t publish something where someone made his defense of Israel look dumb, so he has to dig and dig for whatever bullshit some random Israeli said about XYZ down the line.
like seriously? several minute interludes inserted in the middle of a guy’s answer? the disrespect and audacity.
. @richardchampion8529 that's what I did. I understand why he does it, but not something I would do if I was in the same shoes
. @detrockcity3 Totally agree. And his counterpart would be able to do the same thing, but they can't because it's his video. It seems in bad faith, but Noam seems like a decent guy, so he may just be very emotionally attached to the issue....as many of us are
noam has an insanely fragile ego it's incredibly pathetic
Would you allow this kind of rhetoric about your mother to air?
Why didn't you bring Dr. Finkelstein again to respond?
This speaks volumes about your show and the person you represent.
Finkelstein was supposed to do the show again. He asked us to prepare clips for him to respond to. We did a show "a response to Norman Finkelstein'". He then cancelled at the last minute and compared me to a Nazi propagandist.
It speaks volumes, but now about me.
@@comedycellarclips
You still did not answer.
Why did you allow the insults about his mother to air?
It is onething to take sides supporting Israel, but to allow someone's dead mother to be at the receiving end of insults publically just because you disagree with him is low.
Close your eyes ... look at your mother's face ...
Would you allow anyone to insult her in public?
Finkelstein will have to respond to your claim about canceling his appearance at the show.
@@comedycellarclips Well Finkelstein isn't wrong
@@comedycellarclips That's truly a shame. I was looking forward to round 2.
@@comedycellarclips You seem to have no issue with post-production edits. Why not afford Finkelstein a chance to respond in the Dershowitz segment? This is a repeated issue in your work - allowing obvious misinformation, slanders and defamation to stand unchallenged unless it suits your perspective to challenge them.
Your "apology" and assessment dershowiz's kapo ccusation is very Luke warm. "Dershowitz is a pathological liar and we shouldn't believe a word he says" would be more honest.
Lol. 10,000 other people would have never gone to the lengths I did to clear the record on behalf of a detractor.
@@comedycellarclipsYour colleague seemed to be revelling in the lies being spouted by Dershowitz. The same guy who was very hostile to another guest, Aaron Mate.
Naom at Comedy cellar needs to be congratulated for that lengthy, detailed apology. Don't think I've ever seen anyone do that. Naom cares, that much is very evident.
@jeffreyrasch8596
Are you effin kidding me? Noam didn't have to spend one second apologizing. That he did it just shows that Noam is a gracious guy trying to figure out what is real and true even if it means going against his implicit biases.
How can you not recognize that?
@@comedycellarclips you did good. It says a lot about Dershowitz though because he says this for years. And it has been debunked for years.
Nothing like providing a preamble to an interview with five minutes of post-recorded insults and then self assessing oneself as objective and unbiased.
I take your point. I did it because 1. the interview was obviously so contentious there was no point in pretending, and 2. I though his answers were so revealing, there was also no point in pretending.
Bias would imply that I did not give him a fair hearing, ask fair questions, or cherry-pick facts, etc. I was absolutely fair with him. What you are calling "bias," is me revealing how much I disagree with him.
@@comedycellarclips I never recall any contentious interview by John Stewart or Trevor Noah beginning with anything other than a brief biological induction of the guess. They don’t go back in post and insert a bunch of insults. They came prepared in order to counter the interviewee’s points in the middle of the conversation, or they follow up at the end with a fact check. When you do it at the beginning, it’s essentially saying, “watch me own this libtard.”
@@comedycellarclips Noam this was revealing but it was more about you than him. It's frankly childish. Are we to believe all interviewers should act in bad faith now and "fact check" people on the INTERNET and then publish it after the fact as some sort of gotcha.
Israel should be judged by the same standards the US should have always been. Our own country(that is the US right Noam not Israel) committed war crimes on many occasions and no one calls the US out. Maybe it will finally happen. The world order is changing. And the US can either adapt to it or use it's war machine to destroy anyone who disagrees and kill more innocents in the process. When China "appears" to take the moral highground you know you are in trouble.
@@comedycellarclips You don't like that the facts aren't on your side, so you went cherry picking for (context free) information to make your case. So much of the objections you have to the international human rights community's consensus that Israel is violating IHL is attitudinal, not based on any well reasoned understanding of the law.
@@kathyjohnson3189 People absolutely called out the US for its war crimes. Do you not remember the Iraq war, the Bush torture program, etc? Yeah -- quite a few people took issue with all of that.
Watching the interview i can see why Noam has this monologue at the start, its because he got schooled. An on a side note what happened to the bunker buster bombs? An another question can the IDF do anything wrong in your eyes?
In addition, I think it's worth asking yourself, what if everything was inverted? What if it was Israeli Jews in the Gaza Strip, and Palestinians decided how much water and electricity's was allowed, would you still have the same position? Ask yourself, honestly. And from what I have seen of you, I sense you will give yourself an honest answer. I understand there is a long, complex history, but don't let that obfuscate the thought experiment. How would you feel if the people in Gaza were Jews? Jewish militias used force and violence as a means of fighting said oppression, and Palestinians then bombed them literally to the Stone Age? Would your position be consistent? I think it's something to consider.
You're not precisely correct because as we know, they depend on Israel for water and electricity due to their own corruption and cynical strategy.
But of course, it is unbearable to see one's own people suffer. I don't dismiss your point. And honestly, I find it unbearable to see these people suffer. War is unspeakably horrible. And of course, Hamas has hostages and promises future 10/7s and has put all their targets under civilians. This is a horrible horrible situation.
My beef with Roth is not that he wants the war to stop. Many Israelis do too. It's the blatant bias that is clear from the interview, and the evidence I produced.
@@comedycellarclipswhen they build structures to get power in Gaza, Israel bombs it. So I don’t think how they can be blamed for that.
@@comedycellarclips Before Oct 7th, what percentage of Gaza’s water and electric supply came from Israel? And why do they never seem to run out of rockets?
In regards to your thought experiment. Jews were placed in ghettos for hundreds of years in Europe, improvised, and not allowed into most Job sectors. They had program after progrom which ended eventually in the Holocaust killing 6 million out of 9 million of the Jews in Europe. I am yet to hear a single instance of Jews there killing innocent Germans, and the majority of the Jews supporting that afterwards.
@@comedycellarclips well they don’t have to depend on Israel for water and electricity. The problem is that Israel does not allow them to have their own power plants and water supply. It’s exactly how Israel wants it as the occupying power. Not due to their cynical policies what on earth are you talking about.
@@comedycellarclips thank you for the thoughtful response. A segment of what you wrote is kind of my point; humans have an intrinsic need to advocate for “their own.” That is one of the reasons we have survived for the past 200,000 years, but it is unfortunately also one of the main reasons we are destroying ourselves. I don’t doubt this sincerity of the sadness you have for the tragedy that is happening in Gaza right now. But, that omission that it is “unbearable to see one’s own people suffer” is something I don’t know everyone would identify with. Maybe, that i is partially a result of being in a position of privilege. However, I am curious, in general, how Zionists would feel if everything was the inverse. If China or Iran had a crippling blockade, on Tel Aviv, that had lasted close to 20 years, would you not understand a savage and violent response? I don’t use the word “understand“ as a means of justification. Indeed, there is a stark difference between justification and explanation. Nevertheless, I think it is important that we put ourselves in our enemies shoes, on an individual basis, and globally I strongly believe, if we are going to survive as a People, empathy needs to be one of the most highly respected virtues. And again, I am not insinuating you don’t have empathy, but there most certainly are degrees of empathy. So, I’m asking, would your position be identical if everything we are witnessing in this conflict, was the inverse of what it is now?
I hope you keep producing these debates/interviews, I think it is fantastic content. I may disagree with you on this topic, but I respect your willingness to talk, and, indeed, listen. If you have recognized my handle, I am guessing you do see that I have taken issue with the post editing’s. But, I still like the Contant you have put out in the past two months.
I dictated most of this message, in case it is jumbled in some parts.
What a dumpster fire this has become.
🤣🤣🤣
Brain Of Normal People:🧠
Brain Of People Who Think It All Started On October 7th:💩
There’s no way this is good for the comedy cellar brand
Why? We have on people from every side...
@@comedycellarclipssure, but it’s not really in good faith. Either way I’m not judging you or your opinions or even this show, purely commenting on how it affects the brand.
Yes, but when you have on the likes of Dershowitz, you observe a respectful silence while he's speaking, whereas when you have on people who are critical of Israel you shout them down, you shout them, if not into submission, then into forced silence. A bit like the state of Israel. Your show is like a little rhetorical state of Israel. Hem them in. Shut them up. Don't let them breathe. You're perhaps starting to notice that most of the world objects to that procedure. @@comedycellarclips
@@comedycellarclips 😂 - I'm pretty sure getting yourself on a bunch of informal BDS lists is somewhat sub-optimal.
@@comedycellarclips🤣🤣🤣
Lmao. Imagine not allowing them to have statehood. And have a military. In turn they have to have a resistance group within civilians. Then you come around and say oh, we have to commit war crimes because they had targets within the population (when that’s the only chance they have at fighting this belligerent occupation)
Right.
or they could have accepted state hood the multiple times it's been offered and they never took it. and got other arab nations try to wipe israel off the map too
EXACTLY
@@rachelforshee6014Who gave Iran to whom? It's the Persian homeland for thousands of years!
@@_5_675Israel offered Palestine a chance at statehood in '48, as long as Palestine was cool with Israel annexing 56% of their land. What an offer!
56:42 he later corrects his statement that the Israeli soldiers may not have known that they were Israeli, but you still decided to make a another whole ass video “debunking” him when he already corrected himself. The level of pettiness is crazy.
Exactly. Noam tried to shame the guy by putting words in his mouth: that he said that they shot the hostages deliberately, with full knowledge that they were hostages. I don't think this was asserted. For one thing, it doesn't even make sense. He was trying to say that they are just shooting whoever they see.
@@Yogesh-jq9jjexactly
You guys are nuts. He said specifically that Israel shoots "every young man". I didn't put words in his mouth. In fact, when he made his remark about killing Israelis, I could have simply moved on to another topic. I gave him the chance to walk it back. And BTW, Gallant also "corrected" himself. Roth doesn't even acknowledge that.
So why was he pointing out that they were speaking Hebrew? Either it was that they knew it was Israelis. Or, they thought it was a trap. Neither implies that they shoot every young man.@@Yogesh-jq9jj
@@comedycellarclips He said that they shoot 'every young man'. He means to say that they are not very cautious about who they shoot. If they feel even a little bit threatened, they shoot. Understandable because Israelis don't want to lose soldiers' lives (it is consistent with what we know from previous operations. Soldiers have testified that they were asked to 'shoot whatever moves'.). Now, you can argue that that policy is justified, but it is what it is. And it is his job to point out this is how it is.
😂😂😂No one more devastated than the soldier? Please spare me your wilful blindness.
Don't ever delete this podcast. It's great
And yet another interview overlaid with supposed "gotcha" edits. You are, as I said before, a child. If you interview someone and can't answer them in real time, tough luck. I don't know how you get people to agree to do these rigged videos.
He hung up in the middle of the interview. Funny that you're concerned with the process but not that his facts were inaccurate. I normally give every guest a chance to send me any links that they want to be included in the package.
I don't know of another interview show that lards their videos post-facto with "see I was right" footnotes. You clearly don't like to be talked back to. (You know perfectly well that Norman Finkelstein or Rashid Khalidi or Kenneth Roth isn't going to take the time to help you with post-production after spending an hour on your show.) Given your flat-Earther defense of the Israelis murdering their own hostages, I probably would have hung up too. There are only two non-absurd possibilities in that case: either the Israeli soldiers knowingly killed their own or they killed them because they'll just kill anyone who crosses their path in Gaza. "We don't know, because we weren't there," is simply pathetic. It's the mental (and moral) gymnastics of the true believer. I'll give you one thing, though; you happen to be right that Biden is covering 100% for the genocidal campaign in Gaza. But then so are you. @@comedycellarclips
@@mronyoutube4082 Try 60 minutes.
such a descent into darkness... this will be thaught in schools for sure! having a genocide committed by Israel and demanding empathy for its soldiers
Soldiers that openly post themselves proudly committting literal war crimes on social media
It must be irritating for someone to have done the reading to be interviewed by someone how doesn't do any reading that doesn't confirm their bias until after the interview. Perhaps Roth could only bare 35 minutes of that irritation.
It's amazing that I get so many comments like this. How about specifics? Did he answer the questions?
@@comedycellarclips the pace of your contentious interviews is awkward. When it’s someone you doesn’t confirm your bias, you interject immediately with a post recorded fact check, but when it’s someone who palled around with Jeffrey Epstein and insults a critics mother, you don’t do a fact check until another video. What’s up with that? I’ve watched several of your interviews. All I’m asking is that you acknowledge your own bias and that it may cause you with blind spots. I know I have biases. Nevertheless, certainly the side pushing a campaign to de-legitimize human rights watch organizations is the side of the impartial good guys.
@@robroy AMEN. Dershowitz who is the one who should have been fired from Harvard years back, comes on and gets a freebee. I can't take anyone seriously who gives a pedophile a platform. And no that's not cancel culture it's basic human decency. "Oh but the powerful might be upset". Yawn who cares they are the ones who sit back while young people are set to fight wars they orchestrate from their mansions.
@@comedycellarclips Roth quite literally answered nothing.
I do think you could have pushed him even harder on the concept of proportionality being a "judgment call".
If there's a clear formula, like in order to kill a midlevel commander you are ok to kill 10 civilians, then that's objective, and every single decision Israel makes can be objectively judged by a formula.
But if it's a judgment call, as he admits, a couple difficulties arise. First, what qualifies HIM to make it, even if it's "clear cut," as he suggests? Is he even qualified to determine what "clear cut" means?
I'm pretty sure he's not a military expert, and even if he were, he wouldn't have been privy to all the factors that went into making that decision, at that moment, all the stresses, all the time restrictions, etc, that only a military leader actually IN THAT BATTLE ON THE GROUND could possibly know.
Second, in admitting it's a judgement call, and therefore not giving a number, he was essentially saying it's soft and subjective. Well, if it's subjective, then one man's decision to bomb a military target despite civilians being in the area is another man's freedom fighter. Who can judge?
@@EytanKoch British Col, Richard Kemp has written a number of articles on the IDF"s adherence to the laws of war, including the proportionality discussion.
Noam, you can either be an American or an Israeli. No 2 countries share the same interests all the time and what Israel is doing is not in the interests of America.
Got that right. As an American of the Jewish faith, Israeli actions are clearly adverse to my interests and security.
Yep. The state department has clearly started that Americans are less safe around the world because of our position here.. I guess looking out for the interests of American citizens no longer matter.
Israel is a real sin of middle east and for the world peace
This is such a silly notion. Only a peabrained person can only see things in such binary terms. If there are such dichotomous issues, a person can decide based on their own logic and morality. No need to be a shill 24/7 to everything your country does. I love America, but we’ve done plenty of things I don’t support.
@@josefosterneck2304 How about blaming Islamists for targeting you and their Jew hatred despite having no connection to Israel?
59:21 We weren’t there 🤣🤣🤣
He didn’t hang up on you. He was obviously very clear about 45 minutes. You obviously took liberties with that in your planning. He warned you 3 times he was going to have to go soon, and you kept stream rolling forward instead.
You behave like a child with people who besmirch the great Israel.
He was scheduled for 60. It's in writing. The interview went 35 minutes or so.
@@comedycellarclips things change, he was clear in the interview.
Youre seriously going into the comment section to argue with random commenters? Do you realize how petty and desperate that makes you look? @@comedycellarclips
@@comedycellarclips, "35 minutes or so" when he says hello at 13:12 and hang up at 1:01:05 (47 minutes and 53 seconds). I know you add a lot of videos and comments, 12 minutes, a third of the time?? Why not just make your own video with just some 3 or 4 quotes from the guy you're talking to? It would be more honest and the title wouldn't be misleading like this one "Human Rights Watch Director Counters Charge of Anti-Israel Bias".
@@comedycellarclipsyou are not only misrepresenting what happened but are delusional in your echo chamber club. Your lies have consequences that could end up fatal for someone simply because you are incapable of representing guests you disagree with honestly.
Keep it up and soon you'll get no one of integrity agreeing to come on your delusional egocharged 'show'.
Thanks for showing the raw Gallant footage. After calling people human animals, Gallant unequivocally says "we will eliminate everything" and "Gaza will never be what it was.". He also says there will be no fiod electricity etc. His vile comments clearly extend to the Gazans in general.
yeah I was so confused Noam showed that to “prove” his point that Gallant was only referring to Hamas. Noam just hears what he wants to hear, like every zionist
Yea but he did mention Hamas in there somewhere so there you go! See? It's only against Hamas !
@@ryangee6754 They got an IDF guy to follow Hamas members and specifically slap their groceries out of their hands, and cut the power to their homes only. Everyone else is safe, obviously. Those 8,000 dead children were aaaaaaaaall members of Hamas. I have to say I'm being sarcastic because there are so many commenters here that believe some of this crap I typed.
"Human animals" is an expression in Hebrew which means "savages". And btw, Gazans are savages -- clear to anyone witnessing what they've done on 7/10, how they cheered the events and their grand history of terrorism.
"i didn't understand what my guest said about bomb tonnage, so I looked in the NEW YORK TIMES for an unbiased explanation"
What a joke this show makes of facts
"Buster bunkers" are used to bust bunkers. You clearly don't know what you're talking about but you're upset that someone who did look it up did more homework than you. What a joke!
New York Times is a bad newspaper for bad people @@robertcampomizzi7988
Noam, you’re lucky these folks even come on and debate with you given how incredibly bad faith you are with your guests with opposing beliefs. I mean this is just pathetic.
I'd be embarrassed for you if i thought you had any shame
what israel is doing in gaza is equivalent to waiting till an idf desk cadet goes home to his wife and kids in tel aviv before leveling the entire apartment building and blaming him for using his kids and all of his neighbors' kids as "human shields." that you still claim israel is doing its best to minimize civilian casualties either means you're a liar or you're completely deluded beyond any hope of returning to sanity
Hamas actually uses civilian buildings as military outposts... I know you're in denial about your beloved terrorists but that's the reality
The fact that you have done your research and you have spoken to the experts.. and you are still trying to square the circle that is Israel… is literal comedy gold to me ! More of these wildly combative interviews!! Loves it! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Finally, someone calling out the double standards of these hypocritical anti-Israel organizations. Huge respect to Noam.
This interview is so idiotic. The interviewer wants the Human Rights Watch to treat every incident of bombing or shooting as if it is happening in a context-less environment, that the Human Rights people need to be very, very careful about drawing conclusions. But if that were the case, and if the benefit of doubt needs to be given to Israel in all the cases like Noam wants, no Human Right report can ever get written.
We have a history of Israeli soldiers giving testimony in the past: about how they were asked to shoot 'anything' that moves in Gaza, we have the 'Hannibal directive' which was used on October 7th: Israel tried very hard that Israelis be killed rather than being taken hostage. Given all this information, if you find that Israeli army ended up killing three Israeli hostages, what would you conclude ? Wouldn't you conclude that Israel is doing once again what it has done in the past: 'Kill anything that moves' ?
Why doesn't Noam accept this ? That Israelis don't care about Palestinian lives.
He can argue that they don't want Israeli soldiers to be taken hostage or to lose lives, and this is why they are behaving this way. This is why they are bombing Gaza, and shooting liberally during ground operations. But then you would have to admit that Israel is committing war crimes in Gaza. War crimes would be acceptable to the world if you are fighting an enemy like ISIS. But it won't be acceptable when you are fighting an Islamist militia avenging occupation, disposession and a brutal economic blockade.
This article cites many Israeli military sources, who clearly say that Israel is targeting civilians deliberately, that it is deliberately making Gaza inhabitable.
www.972mag.com/mass-assassination-factory-israel-calculated-bombing-gaza/
He asked in the entire history as well.
A little bit weird he can't name a single instance at all.
Or can't explain how he can make the determination of weighing civilian loss to military advantage when he has 0 insights to the military side.
Little bit of a clown showing from Ken here
@@hg_rebase 'He can't name a single instance at all '
This makes no sense. He said that there are a lot of bombings. Of course, some of them are clearly proportionate, one can't be sure about others because there is very little information coming out from a warzone. He is pointing to cases which are clearly disproportionate, because those are the cases that is his job to criticize. How can he name which bombings are proportionate ? He says there are many bombings. His job is to point out which of them are disproportionate.
'How he can make the determination of weighing civilian loss to military advantage when he has 0 insights to the military side'
How can he give you a fixed formula ? These are subjective interpretations. You have to take many factors into account. He did try to clarify. He can't tell you whether it is okay to kill 100 civilians to take out 1 Hamas militant. It depends on how important the militant is, how densely packed the area is, what the accuracy of the information about the Hamas militant actually being there is. And so on.
Because just like Israelis, pro-Israeli Americans have been made to think that Palestinian lives don't matter.
That's why in mainstream media, 20,000 Palestinians "dead" is a statistic and a collateral damage plus Piers Morgan calls it a moral quandary, whereas 3 Israelis "killed" is an accident and still the fault of Palestinians for making the IDF do so plus the same Piers calls it a tragedy.
@@Yogesh-jq9jj- I'm not sure I necessarily accept the premise that they do somehow come up w/ subjective opinions on disproportionate bombings, but then are simply given the leeway of not identifying a single instance where they investigated and determined that: "even though some civilians died, it would not fit humanitarian law.". It sort of paints the opinion that Human Right Watch considers 1 civilian death a violation, regardless of whether they say otherwise.
Or maybe not even bombings; Any military action at all; That sort of hints a certain bias (be it small or big) with how the org conducts their investigations or atleast how Mr Ken Roth engages with them.
@@hg_rebase This is not how it works. First of all, there is no human rights report yet. They will visit the place and write a report after getting inputs from all the sides. Some of their people must be in Gaza right now. They will collate information, and write all the facts of the matter. They will give their opinion as well based on these facts.
Right now, since he is not at the spot, he is making a judgement based on what is being reported and based on past IDF record. Note that when the shooting of hostages took place, he pointed to an old report where such incidents are detailed. That's all he can do right now.
He can't tell you which bombings were proportionate because:
1. They are not important and won't be reported.
2. The total number of disproportionate bombings and the total deaths they cause gives you a measure of what percentage of deaths occured during those bombings. That gives you a measure of whether in general, disproportionate bombings caused widespread damage to civilian life.
So, I don't even see why one would need to keep track of those kind of bombings.
If you want to prove that these organisations consider even one civilian death as being disproportionate, give me an example where this claim was being made by an organisation. Did they outrage about an incident involving one civilian death ? Otherwise it makes no sense.
Have you told Norm that he was right yet?
Don’t let the comments get to you. If there are some that are objective and not bias-fueled, then great - take them to heart and consider them. But I see plenty of comments here that are basically just anti-Israel people who will seek something to criticize you for because of their own bias.
Ultimately, I think you are an honest actor. From where I'm standing, you might be naive in some areas; as you said to Finkelstein, you didn't believe the Israeli government was planning on starving the Gaza populace, and low and behold. But nevertheless, I truly believe that you want truth. I would suggest having on Max Blumenthal and/or Ilan Pappe. And in my humble opinion, if you are going to add post-edits, you might want to give the person you were debating, the option to, too. We are all people, ultimately we are all the same, so sending love during the holiday!
Yeah, as angry as I am with the naivety, I think I understand the mindset. Imagine believing in something your whole life turn out to be something entirely different. I'd have a massive mental whiplash too. Best wishes.
You mean by Benny Morris? Illan Pappe already refuted that. Also, there will always be point of contention in these topics. But his accounts are similar to Miko Peled too, the Son of Israel's General. Plus there's documentaries from the soldiers that committed the atrocities themselves and gleeful about it. @@rachelforshee6014
@@rachelforshee6014 not to my knowledge. Where did you hear that? I’m sure there have been many attempts to discredit him, but I thought his book I read was really well researched. But, you may indeed be right. It is very hard to tell who is credible, it’s a testament to what a complex world we live in.
Ilan Pappe is considered even too far left by Israeli New Historian standards. Benny’s good enough.
It wouldn't change the facts would it now? Both have strong cases but I'd rather take Illan Pappe's moral position than Benny who justifies the Nakba since he's position is "It's us or them."
the fake library backdrop is perfect given the unforgivable ignorance, especially after all the interviews with scholars who have actual books (and facts) behind them
Honestly, why even have Kenneth Roth on if you're not going to let him speak? Also -- all this cutting away from the discussion with post-facto editorializing with your lay-person's opinion demonstrates that this a bad faith interview on your part. The longer this "war" goes on the more it seems like you're primarily interested in propagandizing instead of informing your audience.
As a fellow Jew, let me tell you something -- you're going to come to regret your words over the course of these past few months. The evidence of systematic war crimes is overwhelming, and your insistence on covering for each and every one of these mass atrocities as separate "hypothetically" defensible incidents without looking at the plain words of Israeli leadership demonstrating genocidal intent, the totality of their actions, and the overwhelming death and destruction of this "war" is morally bankrupt. As a PR expert, I wish I had the chance to debate bad faith actors like you on forums like this. Leaving it to the lawyers and academics means bad faith arguments and logical fallacies go unchallenged, I would never let you get away with this BS.
Thank you for pointing the truth out 💯🔥🙌🏾
Your insertion of lengthy after-the-fact rejoinders throughout the final edited video, without an opportunity for Roth to respond, is patent intellectual cowardice. This was supposed to be a debate.
We normally ask all guests if there are any links or factual matters they want included or corrected in the final package. Roth hung up on us, but we are emailing him.
We are EXTREMELY concerned with fairness and accuracy.
If you want to alert me to anything that is inaccurate, please email me at podcast@comedycellar.com.
Why would I click this after I saw the Comedy Cellar guys hit Khalidi with Hannity type gotcha questions I do not know, but I did and it was just as awful.
You definitely cannot name a "gotcha" question we asked Khalidi. That's absurd.
@@comedycellarclips you're sick mentally how low you can get to keep the justification of a textbook genocide
Hamas are the rulers of Gaza, just like Netyanahu is the ruler of Israel. Who gave Israel the right to go after Hamas, an entire organisation ? Would Noam accept that Hamas had the right to go after the Israeli government after operation cast lead, in which 1400 Palestinians died ?
Hamas attacked Israel. All 2000 fighters who did that are dead. Those who know anything about Hamas say that the military faction and the political faction of Hamas are separate, and that there is no evidence that the political faction knew about or ordered the operation. The foreign-based Hamas leaders seem surprised by the attack.
Does Israel get the right to go after every bureacrat working for the Hamas, every low-level political worker working for them, just because a Hamas militant faction committed war crimes ? Does Hamas then get the right to go after the Israeli government for war crimes the Israeli soldiers commit ?
Did the US have a right to go after Germany in WWII? Germany did not attack the US, they “only” declared war on US.
Roth also implies that a proportionate response must use the least harmful means; this is incorrect.
The interviewer of Ken Roth in this video doesn't seem to have any humanity left in him.
You should get Douglas Murray on. He talks like a modern day Oswald Mosley - you guys will love him 🤗
Its the Anti-Semite who decides which Jew to persecute. The question to Roth should the IDF - Jews fight the war identical to the way in which Arab-Muslims fight each other? Is that the gold standard?
It’s true what the woman is saying about the 9 IDF killed by ambushed the day before including a commander of the unit.
Ok serious question, this is reaction to whats proportionate. If 20,000 people killed doesnt amount to genocide then whats the number? 100k, 500k, 1m, 2m?
genocide isn’t defined by numbers amount of causalities
It's not just a question of numbers but intent. Realize that on October 6th, not a single bomb was being dropped on Gaza, not a single tank or Israeli troop was in Gaza. Not only were no Gazans dying, but they were receiving life-saving medial care in Israel and Israel's government was working on ways to double the number of Gazans getting work visas to enter Israel for employment. By contrast, on October 7th, Hamas managed to deliberately slaughter over 1,200 people, while attempting to murder another 3,500 in just over six hours committing atrocities such as rape, torture, and mutilation along the way. Had the IDF not stopped Hamas, its forces would have continued to try to murder as many more people as possible. After the invasion, Israel warned Palestinian civilians to flee Gaza city, pointing out spaces of safety, and then waited three weeks before invading to dismantle Hamas. That Palestinians face a combat zone is due directly to Hamas decision to built its military infrastructure intertwined with Gaza's civilian population. That not a single member of the Arab League or OIC was willing to accept a single Palestinian civilian speaks volumes, especially when compared to the millions of Syrian refugees accepted during the Syrian civil war, and millions of Ukrainians who fled Putin's invasion. If Israel was truly intent on genocide, then it could have turned the entirety of Gaza into a parking lot in under a week killing every last one of the more than 2 million Gazans.
Noam also thinks that bombs only destroy peoples life's if they blow them to pieces, not understanding that if someone looses their home, neighborhood, city, that is ALSO a CRIME against civilian populations
They had no shirts on waving a white flag with 0 threat! Are you so wilfully blind?
It’s so boring when you interrupt the interview to talk about your independent research.
Genocide Denier.
Noam is so obviously obsessed with Finklestein. Otherwise Norman’s positions wouldn’t take up so much real estate in his head. Dershowitz may be a legal scholar, but his arguments here sound like shooting from the hip with the standard Israeli talking points, many of which are still unconfirmed. So happy Naom does understand how subjective Dershowitz was with his ad hominem attacks. I do think Naom has a strong sense of ethics in the way difficult discussions should be conducted. I appreciate his fairness. Fairness that neither Eli Lake or Dershowitz displayed.
"Noam is so obviously obsessed with Finklestein. Otherwise Norman’s positions wouldn’t take up so much real estate in his head"
What is this even supposed to mean? Are you stupid or do you not know how to convey your points properly? These sentences you write makes absolutely zero sense. Comical that such a stupid person feels wise enough to criticize Dershowitz, Lake, or really anyone for that matter.
Noam should remember what Benny Morris says. I remember Noam couldnt believe there were so many people in todays Israeli society on the extreme right, and Benny telling Noam that you need to look or meet more Israelis because they are definately a big portion of todays population.
The "best" thing about this war was discovering Noam Dworman. Here's a guy wirh such a refrehsing point of view... He really looks at everything. He reads everything about the conflict and he always comes up with just common sense observations and questions. I love it. I've been in this for years and finally seeing someone simply saying "WTF this international law even mean", "what do you mean Israel doesn't have a right to defend itself, why is it occupied, says who, why does it matter" ... Etc. it's a sane rational voice. A good smart man. A no bullshit.
Agree, been loving these videos....
but colman Hughes is 100x better, more intellectual, more calm and less biased but gets all the points across brilliantly especially the chat about finkelstein.
its very arrogant to declare in complete ignorance of the tactical options and strategic picture the IDF is presented with and tell them when they should have risked the lives of their troops in a particular situation. And I don't know this guys story but Im gonna go out on a limb that he has never served in the military.
No need to go back and edit the interview. Just have the conversation and post it as is.
21:56 There is a good explanation on Jonah Goldberg’s podcast by a guy at AEI about why Israel and Americans would make different choices in fighting. Agree or disagree, there is a cost to israel if they were doing things more conservatively. There is some truth in what Roth is saying that Americans wouldn’t drop that bomb but this doesn’t make it “not proportional” and a “war crime”. (At the end of the day none of us can really say anything about are crimes without a detailed investigation about an individual situation - so it is equally irresponsible for Roth and HRW to just assume war crime by the number of people they *think* are being killed). we would have done the same thing as Israel is doing in the past in the ME but at some point we became more conservative to limit civilian casualties, but the cost of that was risking more American soldiers lives. Israel is a small country and america is a country of 330 million people. They are fighting to defend themselves on their own turf. Israel doesnt have the same luxuries as we do to make the same types decisions we make.
He obviously rode the short bus when he was a child.
After all, proportionality involves balancing military objectives and possible civilian casualties; as such it could never necessitate something like a least harmful means rule.
It’s sick when a person dont see there own bias 56:10 You can’t speak to a soldiers state of mind halfway across the world the article says they shot three unarmed shirtless people waving white flags that’s pretty cut and dry You tried to put a nice spin on it though.
It's wild the comments here that don't recognize what Noam is trying to elucidate from this interview. Ken Roth has no spine and refuses to acknowledge any of his bias. The point of discussion that more tons of bombs have been dropped than the civilian casualties shows that it could not be anything but targeted bombing. Anyone familiar with explosives knows what 1 ton of bomb can do in a dense location. The fact that 25,000 tonnes of explosives on the Gaza Strip since October 7, equivalent to two nuclear bombs. And let's say only 25k casualties is unbelievable. Think of the casualties in hiroshima and nagasaki.
The numbers don't yet include those buried underneath the obliterated buildings - a number exceeded incidentally in under 3 months by the Israeli American bombs when compared to the structural destruction of Germany over a number of years not months!!
But why am I even bothering saying any of this on a site committed to its own delusional form of 'logic'.
I'm gone.
Is this watchable or does Noam and his comedian friend have a meltdown?
It's an eye opening piece that shows the biases of ineptitude of those at the helm of HRC. You're probably better suited watching Hassan Nasrallah.
@@user7512 you can’t even get the acronym right. It’s HRW. And Roth is no longer with HRW. Just goes to shows how knowledgeable Noam fanboys are 🤡
@@user7512Hassan Nesrullah with limited resources, liberated his country from the Israeli occupation. It’s funny how militias in their flip flops defeated Israel with billions of aid, not only once, but twice 😂
@@majedtaleb3944 Humiliating for the U.S. too. The emperor has no clothes, only bombs.
Every tyrant and thug says they’re being victimized by overly expansive rights and unjust laws. Standard operating procedure.
Norm can you get an interview with Francessca Albanese the UN special rapporteur
The single most important discussion had on the topic. Every single propagandist sites this organization and here is the executive director of over 20 years showing the world it’s moral dishonesty.
31:12 the law is that you are not killing a disproportionate amount of civilians *in relation to what your military objective is*. And none of us know the targets in each of these decisions. Maybe you can justify, maybe you can’t but he doesn’t know what the targets are in each decision and that matters for the LOAC. Just screaming war crime after every bomb isn’t something a professional org (especially when they don’t have a clue as to civilians vs combatants) should be doing without investigations which is impossible at this point.
56:12 I can’t! 🤦♀️Do more research!!! Roth is right!!! 🤭
How do you edit out mistakes in phrasing but somehow not notice the audio being fucked for the last 25 minutes?
The fact that he think he asked really good questions at the end is absurd. Listening to understand is very different from listening to respond with some BS points
He's clearly suffering from some heavy duty Zionist brain rot.
Comedy cellar? COMEDY???
I lost some brain cells listening to the inane airheaded drivel at the start
This interview is comedy gold 🤣🤣🤣
They never showed a receipt of Ken agreeing to an hour, only that THEY said these things are generally about an hour.
These ignorant people appear to discuss the ongoing war crime of the 'collective punishment' of the Palestinians like it's somehow justified??!!
These apologists for successive Israeli administrations over the last 75 years both disgust & appall me!
I respect Mr Dworman for the way he conducted the interview with Finkelstein. I also think the interview with Khalidi was more or less bearable. But this interview was utterly ridiculous. Why are you having these conversations when obviously your sole goal is to ascertain yourself that your stance is absolutely correct and everyone apart from you are biased haters of Israel? Apart from the fact that it is utterly disrespectful to your guest who (unlike you) is an expert who has been doing research on the matter for decades, it starts to get boring and pointless. You may as well remain in your own bubble and talk to Dershowitz so you can go to sleep feeling at peace because Dershowitz has confirmed you are on the morally correct side of things. But don’t pretend like you are being self-critical when you actually aren’t.
This was your worst interview! Cringe level 10000!
Add some reasons, otherwise you are Hamas troll.
I gotta say as an American it’s strange that so many have this strange dual loyalty to a foreign gov. Israel is more than those who currently lead it.
Roth says they don't report on incidents that do not clearly violate laws of war. When laws of war are followed, they do not issue a report. Therefore he has no ready info on those law-abiding incidents. They are not what HRW is concerned with. Subtract the number of attacks flagged by HRW from the total number of attacks, and you have all the examples where HRW/Roth have no problem with Israel's conduct, which was the question the interviewer was keen to have answered. How many of those non-flagged attacks are there? Don't know.
noam is doing a fantastic job in these interviews , just finished the "ambush of a historian " . palliwood folds at the slightest of questioning . keep up the great work in seeking truth .
israel is now starving gaza in earnest. norm finkelstien was of course unfortunately correct. doubtful noam will ever have the mindfulness to recognize or courage to admit he was wrong
This is really a vile podcast, behind the goofy comedy-cellar facade. These podcasters have no idea what’s going on in gaza, and they have no idea how unprecedented the us-backed decades of Israeli oppression is, when they lament their double standard. There is so much omission, it’s depressing. I’m repulsed.
Not all those people are fighters. Some were journalists.
Incidentally, this is Roth answering on the Article 51 question: Israel's asserted a right of self-defense under article 51 but my understanding was that article 51 doesn't afford an occupying power right of self-defense against people it's occupying so Israel would have a right to a police force to restore order but not necessarily a right to respond militarily I think that was also the assessment of the UN special rapporteur what do you what do you make of that assessment?
I've heard this argument I think it's completely wrong because um it's like people have never heard of a civil war you know it just imagine a civil war you don't even need to think of an occupation but just you know a country where there's a rebel Force um you're allowed to fight back you know not necessarily just using police Powers you're allowed to fight back Army to Army combatant to combatant when it's a war and there is a basic question do is rise to the level of an armed conflict but once it is an armed conflict um you get to assert the right to self-defense you get to fight like a military not just as a police force so I just think these are people who kind to get caught in some you know kind of technical of Law and they lose track of reality of course Israel can respond militarily to a military attack
Can you imagine not believing your own eyes!!
It's a bit misleading to identify this guy as the Director of HRW when he left his post in 2022. I didn't realize he wasn't involved in the organization until midway through the conversation because of offhand comments he made?
I also want to chime in on some of the nit-picking around proportionality; it seems like Roth was trying (maybe not too articulately) to convey that a decision would have to include whether or not the use of a bomb could be justified over other forms of military engagement. Chiming in on another issue, it's really common for white-papers, like HRW reports, to be treated as historical records, not journalism that should be edited and updated. Any update or reevaluation would occur in a future report. In the case of the 2009 white flag report, it seems like the concerns brought up around bias are mostly editorial and not factual-- the events recorded are verified and, regardless of Hamas's perfidy or mitigating factors, remain contrary to the laws of war. I can understand why a bias might be inferred, but I can't see how it bears out in relation to the actual facts of the matter, just the framing of them?
As a Jew who's been following this for close to 20 years, since I was a wee little teen (and isolated from my community because of it), Israel and Hamas's war crimes have been extensively catalogued and it seems like very little has changed. I imagine preliminary reports by human rights orgs included more care in including context, and they still should, despite the seeming lack of impact on the Israeli prosecution of military operations. I would also point out that Hamas is a undemocratic de facto quasi-government comprised of guerilla fighters under the banner of Islamic fundamentalism, and imo not party to, and in fact in indirect opposition with, the supposedly shared values of the "Rules Based Order". How much significance do international human rights organizations and international law have on a stateless militant group, vs. a West-aligned democratic nation and nuclear power? There's not a lot of diplomatic power available when it comes to pressuring Hamas to change its tactics, whereas the international community has the tools to apply pressure on Israel and its policies regarding Palestine, particularly America which provides billions in aid and weapons sales to the IDF.
Sorry, no. HRW cannot tweet them out as a comment on the current crisis and then pretend they are "historical record."
Any organization with integrity would correct blatant inaccuracies. Goldstone felt it important to correct his UN report. Why isn't HRW expected to meet the same standard?
@@comedycellarclips
There is nothing inaccurate there. You just lying to yourself. Just checked your fact about Goldestone report.
The official name of the report is the 'United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict,' conducted by four experts, including Goldstone.
After the publication of this article (51:30), the three other co-authors issued a joint statement collectively affirming the integrity of the report. Additionally, Goldstone himself clarified that he only suggested reconsidering one correction. He is not seeking to nullify the entire report; everything else, except for the correction, remains valid.
So the accusation in this part is also invalid. The Goldstone report remains a valid reference, as affirmed by the collective stand of the three co-authors and Goldstone's clarification.
You can not discredit someone simply by providing ungrounded opinions.
So true. Very enlightning interview! Thanks.
There is no way someone can know if a strike was proportionate without knowing the IDF’s reasons for it. All these pundits like Ken Roth are just speculating. It’s very dishonest on their part.
True
The interviewer threw America under the bus to go hard for Israel. Sheesh!! Is the interviewer American or Israeli?
They do this all the time. RFK, and the whole Republican Party, they paint the American military as barbaric and evil to make Israel look better.
Nobody threw America under the bus? I wasn't criticizing America, only demonstrating the HRW bias.
@@comedycellarclips they were real quick to tell us a bad thing about America. I have never seen this show. Is this person American or Israeli? He sounds Israeli.
Noam's videos actually do the opposite of what he intends.
I wouldnt have stayed that long.
Oh Noam
38:02 Death by 1000 cuts? 🤣🤣🤣
...my guy, really?
23:42 Okay, so it's sounded like the writer was trying to either quote or justify the IDF and their actions by AGAIN blaming Hama's for the deaths caused by the IDF.
I don't get it, if an Israel soldier decides to drop bombs on Innocent civilians...how is THAT the fault of Hama's? SERIOUSLY! Why do they continue to blame SOMEONE else. It has been Israel Officials who have been publicly claiming that they're "in War" with Hama's, well if that's the case then if you're going to make that claim 'about being in War' then Israel should take up responsibility for what they have done. They should accept, they should acknowledge, and they should admit to what THEY have done!
Your bias is sad because I can tell you really want to find the truth and you think you are being unbiased. I hope you find your way
It’s very telling when the guest won’t engage with the conversation or run a consistency test across their arguments.
You can't force the man to give a number. There is no number written in the law and also no range. This is like asking the price for a human being. Nobody sane would name a price or range for that.
I also asked him to give some examples of bombings they had considered and decided met the standard of proportionate. He also declined to do that. I asked him for some incidents that had been "close calls," also no answer. Can you tell me on what basis he decides what is and isn't disproportionate?
@@comedycellarclips I think the way he sees it is asking the question "was dropping this 2000 dumb bomb the only way to achieve the goal or could it have been achieved in a way with less civilian deaths". These are tough questions to answer, the exact reason why there is no number written down.
Your point speaks to the poverty of the construct known as "rules of war". Kenneth Roth was weak. The entire pretended apoliticality of the "human rights" paradigm is weak. Proportionality, like the designation "terrorist", is value- and context-dependent. If, in response to an attack by an armed faction of an occupied population, the occupying power, backed and supplied by a military superpower, bombs the very same population it has dispossessed and occupied; bombs the population that it is subjugating; bombs the population that it has corralled into a tiny area of land, then every bomb it drops on that population is "disproportionate", that is, repugnant to a sense of justice. An occupying and subjugating military power has no valid "military objectives" the importance of which could be measured against the cost to the occupied and subjugated civilian population. You can only sustain your somewhat hysterical barrages of irrelevant niceties because you begin from entirely false premises. You believe that the state of Israel, as it was established and as it continues to impose itself on a dispossessed indigenous population, has a "right of self-defence". The premise is false, therefore your challenging of Roth on the issue of proportionality is mere casuistry in defence of the indefensible.
@@cuicita If everything is based purely on international law then egypt would have been considered an occupying power when it controlled Egypt. The fact is there is a debate in the international law community if the Judeah and Samaria is occupied or disputed terrorities - all the more so with Gaza.
Who in the "international law community", apart from Israeli jurists and jurists bankrolled by Israel, argues that Gaza is not an occupied territory? Even Gallant has said that when the slaughter ends, Israel will “no longer have ‘responsibility for life in the Gaza Strip’”. To most international jurists, "responsibility for life" in a territory sounds pretty much like occupation of that territory. The line-up of experts that do not doubt that Israel occupies Gaza is pretty impressive: the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the UN General Assembly (UNGA), the European Union (EU), the African Union, the International Criminal Court, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch … @@harrynewhof3165
49:41 Hamas doesn’t wear uniforms 🤣🤣🤣
Yeah, America has been accused of disproportionate attacks too. Point?
Point is obvious. He said otherwise.
@@comedycellarclipsHe was talking about a refugee camp. And of course the US has committed war crimes lol.
Doesn't excuse it.
@@comedycellarclips
His point was that when even America's closest ally is talking about Israel's indiscriminate bombings, you have to ponder
He did not say US always acts based on international law. Of course not.
International law does not apply to US or its allies. Just its enemies
@@comedycellarclipsno he didn’t. He said the us would not drop a 2000lb bomb on jabaliya refugee camp. In all the examples you cited, did the us drop those size bombs on a refugee camp?