‘He Is a CHILD KILLER!’ Israel Elections - Will Netanyahu Survive? | With Norman Finkelstein

There is one party in the state of Israel, a right-wing, far-right-wing, and an ultra-right-wing. I know if it's willful ignorance of its stupidity or malice, but someone who's a professor should know better. Israel has become a nation of child killers. It was built as an election with the potential to change the world, but for now, Israel's in a familiar position of uncertainty and deadlock. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's coalition was already held together by string. It survived only with the support of self-described ultra-nationalists who'd never before held power. Well, that block has been eroded, weakened, and rebuted, but has not been defeated, and almost unbelievably, Netanyahu may still find a way to cling on. His main challenger, Gadi Eisenkot, has one major advantage. Almost everyone in the country has a reason to be angry with Netanyahu. The left resents his embrace of violence, settlers, and wars fought with impunity. The right says he has blood in his hands for what was at the very least, a security disaster on October the 7th. A majority of Israelis consistently say that he's corrupt. Hundreds of thousands of them protested his assault on the Supreme Court in what became Israel's biggest ever civil unrest. And what's beyond the speed is that Netanyahu has presided over global collapse and support for a country which is increasingly viewed as callous, reckless, and aggressive. Netanyahu's biggest remaining supporter is now President Donald Trump, the man he corralled into war with Iran. And that war is going to get a lot more complicated if Netanyahu's gone. Eisenkot's a former IDF chief and low shrinking violet, but he does say that regime change is impossible. And the someone Netanyahu's claims about Tehran's nuclear threat are blatant fear, mongering, and lies. For the time being, we can only speculate on what happens next. This confusion, uncertainty, disappointment, and concern about the chaos ahead exactly as Netanyahu likes it. What a moment. I'll introduce tonight's stellar panel. But first, a reminder, check out the Uncensored Club at Pears Morgan.TV. And now to set us up with his assessment of a dramatic 24 hours in Israel, I'm joined from Tel Aviv by the broadcaster and columnist Jonathan Friedland. Jonathan, welcome back to Uncensored. And try and put all this into current perspective. Because people not familiar with the Israeli political system will be scratching their heads thinking, what the hell is going on here? What the hell is going on here? Well, you're absolutely right, Pears, that it's fiendishly complicated. It's not really like any other political system anywhere. On its face, this would be, in any other place, just registered as a big defeat for the incumbent for Prime Minister Netanyahu. He went into this coalition, into this election, with a coalition of 68 seats out of the parliament of 120. That is now shrunk to around 53. And the opposition commands 67. So you think that's a straightforward win. 67 beats 53. The complexity is that a big part of that 67 is made up by parties that represent Palestinian citizens of Israel. One in five Israeli citizens is Palestinian. They have votes, and they use them in a massive way, like yesterday, 80 percent turnout, historic turnout, from Palestinian Israelis going to the polls, really ahead of the average of the Israeli population as a whole. Those parties could take opposition leader Gadi Eisenkot over the top and make him Prime Minister. So again, you'd think that's just straightforward. What's the problem? Those Arab parties view the mainstream Israeli Jewish parties with a kind of degree of mutual suspicion. So a lot of those mainstream Israelis and Zionist Jewish parties went into the selection, promising not to form coalitions with Palestinian majority parties. And likewise, some of those not all, some of those Palestinian parties have historically, since the founding of Israel, refuse to go into coalition with mainstream Israeli Jewish parties, because they say that would legitimate the system. And that is why there's a deadlock on the numbers alone, Netanyahu would be gone. He'd be dumb, that the numbers alone don't tell the whole story. What I've been reading in the last hour or so was quite interesting, that there is a sort of growing sentiment that you could end up, potentially, with a coalition of national unity between Netanyahu and Eisenkot, and the deal would be that Ben Givir, the most extreme member of the cabinet currently, that he and his party would be the sacrificial lands to make that happen. And that would be interesting, because I do believe that one of the big PR issues, if you like, that Israel has as a country, has been driven pretty fundamentally by Ben Givir and Smodrich, these two far right headbangers in the government who are very vocal all the time and say the most extreme things. I think that's one of the main reasons why Israel has got this huge disapproval around the world. And it may be that if Netanyahu does a deal with Eisenkot and they have a national unity and they reset without those figures in the government, that might help in some way. But of course, it would mean Netanyahu still being there. Yeah, there's all kinds of permutations in play and in discussion. The one you've talked about is, in some ways, an obvious solution scenario arithmetically. And that is that the two people who fought each other in this election come together in a so-called national unity government. Again, in purely in terms of arithmetic, in that scenario, Netanyahu would no longer need the likes of Ben Givir and Smodrich. And I agree with you, they have done huge damage to what remains of Israel's international reputation. They would go, he would bring in Eisenkot, he'd have the numbers, and that would all be fine. What's the problem? Eisenkot knows that there is a long history of opposition leaders who, having failed to completely knock out Netanyahu, have gone into coalition with him and been badly burned. The last one to try it was offered a rotation deal in which Netanyahu said, "I'll be prime minister first, you'll be second, I'll sign it in a contract, and wouldn't you know it just when it came for the other guy's turn." Netanyahu brought down the government and went to elections. He has a history. Nobody in Israeli politics outside his own party trusts it. And therefore, Eisenkot went into this election saying, "I'm not going to do that." He gave interviews saying, "Play the tape back to me. I will not sit with Netanyahu in government." Nevertheless, it is a scenario. And one discussion in play now is, first of all, that your old friend Donald Trump might get on the phone to Netanyahu and say, and to Eisenkot and say, "General, this is the American president talking. I'm pressuring you to do a deal with Netanyahu." The other key president in this story is Israel's president. Isaac Herzog, ceremonial head of state, that he gets to choose who he asks first to have a crack at forming a government. Now, does he, perhaps say to Eisenkot, "I'm going to broker a deal whereby you go into coalition with Netanyahu and because I know you're skeptical, I'm going to make sure that you're first. You take first go at being prime minister. What does Netanyahu get out of it?" Well, the president just happens to be the person who holds the power of a criminal pardon. Remember, Netanyahu is on trial for three different corruption cases. Herzog, the president, could say to him, "In return for a pardon, do a deal with Eisenkot. You will have to go second as prime minister and sit in Eisenkot's government as a minister." These are just different scenarios at the moment. Eisenkot may not take any of them. But because of the deadlock, people are looking at different scenarios, including the obvious one, although now looking more improbable, which is that Eisenkot goes into a minority administration that is kept in office by those majority Palestinian citizens of Israel, parties previously at taboo. Does Eisenkot have the strength to courage, the imagination, to break that taboo and form a government the like of which Israel has never really seen, which is sustained in office. It's happened once before, but in a different way, by some of those Arab parties. So all kinds of scenarios under discussion. Just fascinating stuff. I mean, just finally Jonathan, what is the mood like on the streets in Tel Aviv? Because the rest of the world looks at Israel right now and says, "Why so many Israelis still supporting Netanyahu, given October 7th happened on his watch?" And there are serious questions being asked about what he was warned in advance of this happening and his failure to deal with it when it happened. Plus, the "aprogram" which is poured down on Israel because of the actions of Netanyahu's government since October 7th. And yet there he is, still potentially, thinking on to power. Does that mean that within Israel, there is a much more generous sentiment towards Netanyahu than there is externally? Well, not completely. Remember, his coalition has shrunk massively. He's taken a huge hit. It would be a defeat in any other country. I know that you've been talking on the show about those big elections in, say, Brazil or Serbia. The margin against Netanyahu was bigger here, bigger than the one that got rid of Victor Alban. You know, against him, if you look at the electorate as a whole, there is a huge body, I've talked about, the Palestinian parties, but of Jewish Israeli voters who would only disagree with your description of Netanyahu just now, by saying it's too mild, that they cannot stand it. They feel that he has. blood on his hands for the failures leading up to October 7th and everything that followed to say nothing of the Qatar gate scandal. Members of his inner circle who there's overwhelming evidence that they were in the pay of the government of Qatar. Any one of these scandals should have got rid of him immediately and there is his coalition having taken a huge hit in terms of its number of seats. Why does he hold on? And this you do see reflected in the mood here. There is a body of voters, his base, which is so loyal to him because partly he's dominated the landscape here for three decades. Remember he was last Prime Minister in 1996. That was the first time he was elected. He's been Prime Minister for 20 years on and off since then. There's grown almost a kind of dependency on him, feeling, believing him and all his supporters and he controls big parts of the media here. Channel 14 is wholly loyal to him, like a kind of Fox News station. They keep pumping out the message that only Netanyahu can keep you safe. Only he can talk to a world leader like Donald Trump with his astonishingly fluent English. Everyone else around him are midgets by comparison. That line has gone deep into the kind of marrow of a base in Israeli society, a chunk of the country that just will stick with him through thick and thin. And he's just very adept at marshaling that base while the opposition is much more divided. But in terms of the mood here, a lot of people very dismayed. They really felt this was their last chance. Their best shot, Eisenkaught, an amazing profile, military credentials from Moroccan, from the working class background, speaks to a constituency, often not represented. People flying in from all over the world, to cast votes, Israelis living abroad. There was a sense that this was the moment. And the fact that, as you say, it's very likely that Netanyahu stays in that chair. That's really demoralised a lot of people, even as it's obviously cheered his base. Yeah, extraordinary stuff. Jonathan Feeder, thank you so much to David. I appreciate it. Good to be with you, Pears. Joining me to debate the election results so far is political scientist and activist Norman Finkelstein. Jonathan Conrickus, senior fellow foundation for defense of democracies. The Palestinian-American journalist and commentator Omar Bader and Peter Bainat. He's the author of the Bainat. Well, I can't think of a better panel to try and dissect all this. Jonathan Conrickus, let me start with you. You know, you've been one of the guests I've had from the pro-Israeli side. He's never been blindly loyal, supportive of everything the Netanyahu government does. He obviously former IDF man yourself. Isaac Kot is a former IDF man. Where's your sentiment lying right now? I mean, given the drop in support for Netanyahu's government, do you think it is the moment now that Israel gets a new leader? Or do you think Netanyahu has done enough here to survive? And that would be a good thing. Yeah, good evening, Chalom. You know, as an Israeli, how I feel today is that I'm happy that we have free and democratic elections, probably the only ones conducted in a 2,000 kilometer radius. I'm happy at the democratic level to see lots of Arabs voting and participating. It's sad that these Arabs, even though they are part of the political process and have the same rights as everybody else, continue to refuse to be part of modern Israel and to call themselves Israelis and be part of the state of Israel in that sense. And Jonathan made interesting remarks and I think he's a thoughtful fellow. The only thing that kind of struck me wrong was how he kept referring to them as Palestinians. The way I see them and the way that actually many of them would see themselves would be Israeli Arabs. And that whole narrative of branding them as Palestinians is a bit subversive. But more to the point about Netanyahu, I think he's again proven himself as a grand master of Israeli politics. His campaign in the last two, three months was basically focused on him and him alone. He hid away all of his less qualified and less eloquent ministers, some of them with very troubling records and the way that they have have or have not really performed under this government. He really put all of those in a cupboard and threw away the key and shouldered the entire campaign on himself. And apparently it has worked just enough to prevent the other side from winning. And that's the bottom line here. Now where my assessment of Israeli politics differ a little bit from what Jonathan said. I think that Eisenkot has a lot of bad options. His results are not good enough to actually unseat Netanyahu. And I don't think that he will repeat the mistake that was done by Bennett a few years ago in actually working with or relying on the support whether tacit or active of Arab parties in order to form a minority government. His numbers aren't good enough and it would be a blatant violation of many election promises. And most parts of his block will probably not agree with it. And I think that unity government while it is definitely called for. As I said before, there are a lot of people Israeli Jewish Zionists who feel very strongly against Netanyahu. And what that brings us to is a stalemate. And the scenario that a lot of people feared is that we will have to do elections all over again in three or actually five months with these inconclusive results. And what I look at from a security perspective is that this of course exposes Israel to additional aggression. Our enemies I'm sure are happy with the fact that we have indecisive elections here. And I'm sure that they look forward to trying to drive a wedge between different parts of Israeli society. Hamas I'm sure will appreciate the fact that there's less pressure on them. And I'm sure we will discuss the Iranian regime and what it means for them. But all in all happy that we have a democracy not happy with the results. Okay, Norma Finkelstein, do you think it really, I will bring you in because I saw you grimacing at some of the things Jonathan was saying. And I think I know which bit in particular I will come to you. But but Norma Finkelstein, do you think it really matters who ultimately prevails here? Because you know many people say look, Isaac got me, he's not Netanyahu but he's not far off. You know they differ on a few small issues but broadly speaking, there would be unlikely to be a massive change in philosophy regardless of which one of them prevailed in the end. Is that how you see this? Well, thank you for that important question. I'd like to just previous briefly comment on your previous speaker. I hate to throw cold water on his parade, but there was no democratic election in Israel for a very simple basic fact. The Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are part of the state of Israel. Israel has annexed those territories. In July 2024, the Israeli kineset passed the resolution. There will be no Palestinian state west of the Jordanian river. Mr. Netanyahu, when he spoke at the United Nations, was very emphatic. Judea and Samaria are part of the state of Israel. Now that population represents 30% of the potential electorate. So I ask you peers because you're an intelligent person. My publisher told me that last night. I ask you a very simple question, not polemical, not rhetorical. If New York State, California, Texas, and Florida, if that electorate, if those voters were excluded from participation, would you call it a democratic election? I believe, but you can speak for yourself, that you wouldn't. So how can you classify the Israeli election as democratic when 30% of its population, according to the Israeli government, is excluded from participation. Now to the question that you asked, a second problem with calling it a democratic election, is that essentially there is one party in the state of Israel. It consists of a right wing, a far right wing, and an ultra right wing. Mr. Eisenkaat, he got together with Netanyahu, approximately 100 of the 120 seats in the Kineset. Now Mr. Netanyahu is according to many, probably abroad, consensus of scholars and heroes. humanitarian and UN institutions. He is a genocidal murderer. He is a child killer. He comes to the UN and holds up a pager bragging about what even the former head of the CIA, Mr. Leon Panetta, called an act of terrorism. About that, there's no dispute. So let's go to God, the Eisenkot. Eisenkot is best known for having authored the Daya doctrine. What is the Daya doctrine? Every one of your listeners knows the most basic principle of the wars of war, law. Everyone knows it. It's called the principle of distinction. What does that mean? It's just a highfalutin term for you can target combatants, and you can target military sites. But you cannot target civilians and civilian sites. In 2006, Gadi Eisenkot, he was the one who authored the Daya doctrine, which is that you target civilian sites, you target civilians. He is by an act of authorship. He is a certifiable war criminal under the most basic principle of international law, the principle of distinction. Here's, can I comment here? Well, I saw you grimacingly. I do want to bring me up a two in first, Jonathan. I will come back to you. I'll just make a-- I'm sorry. Yeah, Jonathan, some of us have-- No, I want to give the others-- No, no, I will bring you in. But the others haven't had a chance to speak yet. They must-- we have a panel here. So Peter, welcome back to Uncensored, to you. I want to play a clip from Donald Trump reacting to the news that Netanyahu had clearly done better than people thought. Let's take a look. I married anything very proudly. You know, it's pretty poor, very well. When the endorsement went out, it helped them a lot. But I actually heard it did pretty well. It might be winning, or dies. The dies are considered a win, and it's a big guest night. I mean, they kind of wedded, aren't they, a bit, Netanyahu and Trump? They joined at the hip over the war in Iran. Trump has been very supportive of Netanyahu, particularly recently in the run up to the election. Called him a great warrior prime minister. Anyone else Trump warned would be the wrong leader and so on. How significant, how influential is Donald Trump in all this as the negotiations now play out? As to what kind of government is going to get formed? I think Trump is much less significant than the rules of the game in Israel in general, which are to use a phrase that Trump often likes to use rigged, which is to say, because Israel defines itself as a Jewish state, it's 20% of Palestinian citizens, right? As Norman was saying, most of the Palestinians under Israeli control can't become citizens, so they can't vote in Israeli elections. But the 20% of Israel citizens who are Palestinians, they can vote, but they're not considered fully legitimate members because it's a Jewish state. It's almost as if, imagine America to find itself as a white Christian state, and most Americans voted against Donald Trump. But then the media said, well, you know, a significant number of those votes against Donald Trump were voted, were the votes of black people, or other people who are not questions. And so we're not sure those are really legitimate people to enter into a government. That explains the situation that Israel's in today, in a healthy functioning liberal democracy where all citizens were treated equal. Palestinian citizens would be the base of the anti-national coalition, and they would be at the heart of a more progressive politics, just like black Americans are in the United States. OK, I'm about to, you were pulling faces at Jonathan Conruches' early comments. I think it was about what Norman touched on the course, which is this supposition that Jonathan put out that everyone gets treated equally in this election. So what did you want to say about that? Yeah, it's completely absurd on its face. Israel is an apartheid state as essentially, you know, confirmed by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, and it's not difficult looking at what how Israel operates and practice. To Norman's point, the most critical part is that millions of Palestinians who live under Israeli control do not get to participate in that election. And if you wanted dispute whether, you know, they live under Israel or not, ask any Palestinian in the West Bank if they want to travel anywhere in the world. Who do they go through? Do they control their own borders? Do they collect their own taxes? Their lives are completely controlled by Israel. They have to go through Israeli border controls before they can go anywhere. So they are controlled by the state of Israel. And they don't get to participate in that election. And when we talk about Palestinian citizens of Israel who do get-- and by the way, there's nothing insidious about calling them Palestinians. That is their identity from before Israel was even created. So there are Palestinian citizens of Israel. They put forth a bill in the kineset trying to define Israel as a country for all its citizens. And the kineset does not even allow that to come to the floor for a vote. That is the level of contempt that Israel has for Palestinian citizens of Israel. They do not see them as equals and they do not treat them as equals. In addition to the fact that their schools are underfunded, the fact that they face incredible legal discrimination on the books in terms of housing, in terms of a whole slate of issues in which they are told that they are not equal. And the most remarkable thing about this election appears is that you do have a situation right now where the pro-Natiniah oblok and the anti-Natiniah oblok are neck and neck and fighting over who's going to win. And either of them could solve this very easily by simply forming a coalition with the Palestinian citizens of Israel, the so-called Arab parties in there. But the level of contempt that they have for them, that they both promised that they would never work with them, which reminds you of how much these both blocks have more in common than they do in opposition to each other. They are both committed to not forming coalitions with Palestinian citizens of Israel. They're both committed to keeping Palestinians under the boot of military occupation indefinitely, no Palestinian state, no equality under the law for everyone. And so effectively, there are joint in a deeply anti-Palestinian posture, that is what they collaborate on. And the difference is about a level of extremism, about a degree of extremism, where Eisenkaught and his wing would rather manage the brutal occupation in a way that is a little bit better from a PR perspective. And people like Netanyahu with Ben-Gveer and the rest of the team of lunatics they have, they want to be extremely aggressive in terms of pushing ethnic cleansing in the West Bank, in line with what they've done in Gaza, and pursuing this insane war that they have with Iran more aggressively. So it is about a degree of badness, but we should be absolutely clear eyed about the fact that the central issue, which is the whether Palestinians get to have freedom and basic human rights, that is not simply an issue in this election at all and has not been discussed in this discourse, and will simply not change no matter who wins this essentially sham of an election. - Here's. - Okay, well John, I think congratulations on showing a very rare, very rare patience. I have to take my hat off to you, very unlikely not to try and jump in and interrupt. So the floor is yours. - Yeah, thanks for the snark in the comment, and it is really testing because you bring three people budding up with the same infantile and ignorant opinions about Israel, and at least I should have the same amount of time. And I'd like to confront the ignorant, really tremendous levels of just, I know if it's willful ignorance of its stupidity or malice, but someone who's a professor should know better than to claim that Israel has annexed or applied Israeli law over Judean Samaria, it has not. There have been statements by Israeli politicians, but under Israeli law, Israel has done no such thing. There are many people who want to, but the state of the matter is that the legal situation that governs the situation in Judean Samaria are the Oslo courts, whereby the Palestinian authority exists, and they are the ones who govern the Palestinian population there. And Israel is responsible for the Jewish population there. Now if we all want to talk about elections, free elections, by all means, let's do that. And since you seem so caring and interested in how Arabs vote and where they vote, do you know where they vote? Arabs between the river and the sea, the only place that they can vote freely is in Israel. The only place where they are prevented from voting is in their autonomy, as provided to them by the Oslo courts, and that is in the Palestinian authority. Jonathan, can you address specifically the fact that no one in the West Bank cannot live under Israeli control? No, I'm not going to have any option. And asking you to address, I'm not interrupting. I'm not going to have any interruptions. I stayed quiet in spite of the vitriol and nonsense that you simply-- I'm simply asking you to address the point. I'm not even going to address it. The only people who are not allowed to vote and who do not have any democratic representation are Arabs living under the Palestinian Authority, who currently are governed by Mahmoud Abbas and his thugs and the PA, who he is in his 22nd or 23rd year of a four-year term. Many countries, including your country, peers and many others, recognize the Palestinian Authority and some of them said it would be on condition of reform and elections in the Palestinian Authority. Those elections were supposed to be held late this year or by the latest, by the beginning of next year. And guess what happened? They've been cancelled by Mahmoud Abbas for whatever reasons. He's given a few window dressing reasons, but the bottom line is that if any of you hypocrites had any concern for freedom of democracy, for freedom of political, freedom for Arabs between the river and the sea, your first talking point shouldn't be to slander democratic Israel, where two million Arabs have voting rights and participate in the political process. It should be a share, which is the Palestinian Authority. And the second point that I want to respond to is the defamation of the Dachia Accords. First and foremost, I suggest that you at least learn how to pronounce it correctly. It's the Southern neighborhood of Beirut. And if you're referencing something, at least make the effort of making it sound correctly, professor. And the second point, which is totally inaccurate, and believe me, I've studied the doctrine much better than you have, is that it is an issue of targeting terrorists and hitting the terrorists despite the fact that it is understood that they're hiding behind innocent Americans. And using them as their human shields, which in fact is Hisbalah's modus operandi, the same modus operandi that Hamas uses, using humans as human shields and putting their own people in harm's way and doing it knowingly. And the Dachia doctrine simply says, we recognize the fact that the terrorists are hiding behind people, and we're going to warn ahead of time, cause people to leave, but we're also going to signal to the terrorists that it's not going to help you that you're hiding between them. And in closing, I want to say one last thing with regards to the situation in Israel. I definitely didn't vote for either Smotlich or Bangvier, and I have said on this program and many others that I think Bangvier has done tremendous damage to Israel. I have also said that Israel needs to do better in terms of policing and I'm holding law and order in Judea and Samaria and not to allow Israelis to operate as they have. But I think that so many people are very quickly. So many people are simply either racist, anti-Semites filled with hatred or ignorant, and they're willing to even on a day when Arabs in Israel participate and make a landslide achievement, go on and pontificate about democracy in Israel, which is the only democracy in the region in many thousand kilometer radius where Arab people, women and men can vote, and they can do so freely without repression, without violence. So it suggests that before you, it is the only apartheid regime in the region committing genocide. I gave you, if I had any five minutes, let me say hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on, because, for a while, reason Peter has to leave us. So Peter, Peter, before you go, just your reaction to what Jonathan said, then I'll bring you over to him. Yeah, it's interesting. Jonathan talked about the Palestinian authority not holding elections. I think he's exactly right. I actually wrote a column in the New York Times just a few weeks ago arguing that the United States should push for elections in both the West Bank and Gaza and East Jerusalem. But for the reason those elections don't take place is not only because Mahmoud Abbas is a corrupt authoritarian, it's because Israel doesn't want to allow Palestinians to hold free elections. In fact, neither does the United States, because they fear that Palestinians might choose leaders who Israel and the United States can't control. So if we want Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza and East Jerusalem to have the right to vote, that means allowing them the right to vote and them to choose their leaders, right? And in fact, Israel and America's policy have been exactly the opposite. Peter, thank you very much indeed for joining us. I know you have to leave you said that before we started that. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. And I want to bring the others in first, Jonathan, because you had a good five minute whack there. So Norman, would you like to say back to what Jonathan was saying? Well, first of all, there will be a point of agreement here. I do agree with Jonathan that my Arabic pronunciation is appalling. And even though I've written several books on Gaza, I've never been able to pronounce Gaza correctly. I try, but I just don't have an earful language. I'm a reader. I'm not graded for both skills. And for what it's worth, Jonathan can't stay in Bahia either in Arabic. I can say, I can say Hamas. And I can say, because you're done, I'm saying it's honestly. I'm sorry. Yeah, this is, this is meaningless. And I can say, and I can say the word, I can say that I can say the word pedantic. So shall we get right to the big picture, please, gentlemen? Yeah, and I can say big, and I can say Israel. I can say a lot of things that doesn't make a name. Is this a filibuster? Okay, thank you. So, Jonathan says, I misstate the Dahia doctrine. People can look it up in Wikipedia or in any other place and find out who's speaking correctly about whether the Dahia doctrine was specifically the targeting of civilian neighborhoods in Beirut, which was extended to civilian neighborhoods in general. So Mr. Karnakis, John, Jonathan, he says Israel only targets people when they're being, a target civilian is going to be used as human shields. So, as a point of information for your listeners, let's look at the New UN report on Gaza. The New York New UN report states that Israel allowed me to quote it, that Israel continues to commit genocide in Gaza. Now, Mr. Karnakis, without, you know, this fluency in many languages, surely knows that the essence of a genocide is you're not targeting combatants. You're not targeting military sites. The essence of a genocide is you're targeting civilians. Now, the report goes on to say that, quote, Palestinian children, children are deliberately targeted on discriminatory grounds. That is to say, they are targeting the children deliberately because they're children. Now, what does that mean as a practical matter? Since the ceasefire went into effect in October 2025, 1400 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza. Now, peers, that's more Palestinians killed in Gaza since the ceasefire than were Israelis killed on October 7th. So, if that's a ceasefire, then what happened on October 7th was a super ceasefire. Of those 400 gossens killed, 300, 300, 300 were children. 36 Israeli children were killed on October 7th, nearly 10 times more. Palestinian children have been killed during the ceasefire, but Mr. Conrickis is very adamant, very insistent that Israel would never target civilians, only when Hamas is using them as human shields. Yeah, I'd like to respond to that, peers. Respond to it. Well, you can respond given you a reference by name many times, and then Omar, you can respond to Jonathan, because it's two of you one at the moment, I accept that, and I don't want you bleeding afterwards that you are outgunned. I think you can handle two people, Jonathan. I can handle more in Israelis, handle more every day, peers, so it's totally fine, but I appreciate the gentlemanly approach here. So, if we're serious here for a second, and these are serious matters, allow me not to be impressed by yet another UN report written by corrupt, biased, sham liars against Israel. Allow me not to be impressed by Hamas statistics of who is a child and who isn't. Allow me to remind you that Hamas regularly uses 14, 15, 16, 17-year-old boys as combatants. Allow me to remind you that yes, Israel has indeed violated the ceasefire numerous times, but it is in order to take out eliminate or assassinate Hamas terrorists who participated in October 7. And while I agree, I take the point that it is indeed a violation of the ceasefire, those said terrorists who participated in the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust on October 7th when they went in, purposely killing civilians, burning, murdering, raping, And humiliating Israelis at the scale never before seen regretfully what they did on that day has prompted Israel to say well We are going to hunt them down and we're going to hunt every last one of them down and every time that Israel is able to take one of them out We will issue a statement saying this is who we attacked this is what this terrorist did on October 7 And this is why he also was a threat for the future because he was busy building Hamas capabilities Hamas were Islamic jihad capabilities for the future And that is the reason that Israel fights. So if you want to make that grotesque comparison between the General Sidel intent of Hamas on October 7 against Israeli civilians and soldiers what they did And if you want to make a comparison between that and hunting down terrorists and perhaps inadvertently also killing non combatants but totally leaving out the context I think it tells very much more about your intellectual integrity and how deep down the rabbit hole of Israel hatred you are professor And I think it erodes your very basic legitimacy to have any point of reference on what's going on And it just exposes how perverted your perspective is OK now I want to just read my you will be responding now I just want to bring in the fact that polymarket has been asking In the prediction markets he'll be the next prime minister of Israel a lot of movement as you'd expect in the past 24 hours Netanyahu has jumped into the lead 47% yesterday only 27% Eisencock now on 33% yesterday picking up 56% and other on cents and regular enough tally Bennett currently on 4% He's talked about 10 points in the last few days and 75 million dollars in that market So you know the prediction markets are often on the money I would argue Omar and they're definitely pointing it seems that the the predictive money is going towards Netanyahu staying in power And you know we can go back over the history of various things But actually right now there is a non-going live election in play which is going to have enormous consequences And I don't think we should move too far away from that And would you look if I gave you a set of circumstances that notwithstanding your general view of all of them That if you ended up without smodrich and bengiveer in their parties being part of a government Would you consider that to be a better scenario than the one that we currently have I would answer your question peers by pointing the fact that the only difference there is between People like smodrich and bengiveer and then somebody like Netanyahu Is the fact that they are explicit about the goals where he would rather keep it hidden and under the carpet That is the primary difference Netanyahu's policy is one of ethnic cleansing of genocide Of depopulating Gaza of wanting to pursue a more aggressive posture in the West Bank to do something similar But he wants to put the cover of security on top of it Whereas smodrich and bengiveer speak openly about it as being an ethnic cleansing project To get rid of the Palestinian population there That's a cosmetic difference so I don't think that it would be particularly consequential Apart from maybe better PR for Israel and their campaign of ethnic cleansing and genocide If those were not there But just to respond really I think it's very very important to address what what Jonathan had just said About the killing of children and he's inserting doubt into that You know how many of these children are Hamas fighters and who counsel whatever There have been dozens of Western doctors Including American Jewish doctors who have gone to Gaza And they have said that there is a pattern of targeting of Palestinian toddlers Two and three and four year olds with sniper bullets Now Jonathan is so committed to this narrative that Israel only targets terrorists They do it effectively at this point Have you believe that one and two year olds who have been shot on the head by Israeli snipers Must be Hamas members or something It is completely ridiculous There's just simply no doubting the fact that anybody who looks at the evidence Overwhelming evidence in terms of video footage in terms of testimony In terms of reports and everything else that Israel is waging a war on the civilian population And then he talks about how concerned he is about Palestinians voting in Palestinian democracy Well the last time Palestinians in the occupied territories voted The wrong party one and Israel responded by putting the Palestinian population Under a suffocating siege where they were punished collectively Having basic food items not allowed into Gaza because they voted the wrong way And you have Chuck Schumer the leader of the Democrats here in the United States Coming out and explicitly saying that the goal of that siege Is to teach Palestinians a lesson to make their lives difficult so that they would learn to vote the correct way Next time that is the view about Palestinians and democracy And you would never apply that standard to Israelis When they vote lunatics into power like Netanyahu and Smotert and the rest of them Nobody says it's time to starve Israelis and punish them And stop letting food in so that they would vote the right way the next time We respect the principle democracy in a way that we've never respected it with Palestinians And Mahmoud Abbas at the end of the day is a janitor who basically manages that occupation in the West Bank He is not in control of anything Palestinians in that West Bank again to the point that Jonathan just completely glossed over When he's talking about the annexation never happened Yes on paper it never happened but de facto it is a reality on the ground Israel is in charge of the West Bank Palestinians moving from one place to another inside the West Bank have to go through Israeli checkpoints Palestinians trying to leave or enter the West Bank have to go through Israeli border controls Israel is in control of that territory And any pretense that Palestinians are not living under Israeli control It's complete and total fiction designed to manufacture again just utter bullshit PR For an apartheid government and pretend that it's more democratic than it actually is Yeah just to clarify for the viewers You're going to get a chance to speak You know it's interesting because people might tune into this stage and they'll say we've got two guys obviously very anti Netanyahu And one in the middle who you know is from Friday air and supportive of the Israeli government and so on And it was really interesting Jonathan this time One of the reasons for that that it isn't a slightly more balanced lineup in the way that I would have preferred is that we tried so many people to come on to be loud and proud in their support of Netanyahu And people didn't want to do it And I found that really interesting a lot of the usual people that we thought when Want to come on or want to talk up Netanyahu did not want to do that And I just you know I do question whether Netanyahu's run his course That actually a lot of Israelis even if they've been supportive of him historically They just think that the the a probe room that is being poured on Israel globally They blame him and Smodrich and Benghiveer these right-wing head bangers He did the deal with to get back into power They just think it's causing enormous damage to Israel and to his reputation And I agree with that So it was I just wanted to say that Well let Jonathan respond first and then I'll come to you No rest one point of descent Yeah, so I want to respond to that Pears since you since you often let Jonathan respond now and then I'll give you the final word Yeah, I mean thank you so much I don't know what the schedule of other Israelis are and what motivates them to come on or not Maybe they saw who else was lined up on the show and they say Why share a panel with a bunch of Israel bachelors? I didn't know enough ahead of time about all of them So I said yes, why not? By all means let's come on after Israeli elections Elections that I'm not very enthusiastic about But let's come on and and speak about them nevertheless To the point that Omar made here and it's an important point that you kind of glossed over here Speaking about wrong results in elections So let's clarify for people who may be less aware When you say wrong elections or wrong result I'm pretty sure you're meaning that Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 Handed it over on a dirty silver plateau to the Palestinian Authority They had elections and then the population in Gaza elected An internationally recognized terror organization affiliated with the Muslim brotherhood Otherwise referred to as Hamas They have since then govern Hamid the Gaza Strip And they have brought nothing but death, destruction, ruin and poverty on that area But in this panel like in so many others You will continue to spew your nonsense and ignorance about the Israeli responsibility But not a single word What are you talking about? Responsibility The Israeli government is an innocent leader A bigger terrorist organization He'll hold on to the more civilians And it's responsible for the Syrian Gaza I did not interrupt you I didn't interrupt you I waited my turn and I suggest you grow the patience to do the same When you said all of these nonsensical things about Israel I suggest that you as an Arab At least have the basic dignity To demand of your own people Agency and responsibility You elect a terror organization No, thank you I'm not going to demand more of what is really this really occupied by a foreign government Take the book of foreign occupation off the next of Palestinian With you referred to That is the number one priority for Palestinians To resist that occupation Of course And you have a lot of your people This is victim blaming nonsense This is the thing we aren't aware of We have run out of You represent a genocidal government And you want me to hold my people responsible Or living under that genocide that is imposed by your government Guys, when you all talk, nobody can hate I want to make one point We have run out of time Jonathan, wrap up your point Normally you get the final word Jonathan, very quickly So I'd like to wrap - Wrap up and say that exactly what happened now. - It does wrap up your point, Jonathan Grecoly. Yeah, the point being that demand equally, demand of Arabs, what you demand of Jews, and measure everybody by the same yardstick, and that will be the beginning of a solution to problems in the Middle East, because I assure you that Arabs won't continue to get away with what they've been up to for the last 75 years, where Jews are held to one standard, and Arabs, otherwise referred to as Palestinians, are held to a different one. - Okay, Norman, final word to you. - Thank you so much. I think there's a misunderstanding here. The problem is not the candidates. It's not God, the icing card. It's not Benjamin Netanyahu. The problem, as I see, it is the electorate. It's the Israeli-Jewish population. Let me make a very simple comparison. In the last presidential election in the United States between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, it's widely reported that a significant, and maybe the most significant factor in Kamala Harris's defeat was that she went along with Joe Biden on the Gaza genocide. It's very striking to make the comparison, whereas the Gaza genocide played a key role, and maybe the key role, in the defeat of Kamala Harris and the victory of Donald Trump. The Gaza genocide plays no role whatsoever in Israeli elections. It's not even a side show. It never comes up, because the essential problem, as I see it, is, well, just one example. Pears, you remember, because you talked about it, between March and May 2025, Israel denied any goods coming into Gaza. You commented on that fact. And then in July 2025, there was a poll taken of Israeli Jews, and they were asked the question, does the fact that there are reports of starvation and famine in Gaza do those reports concern you? 80% of Israeli said it doesn't concern them at all, or it concerns them a little bit. The population of Gaza is one half children, and they said reports of starvation and famine either don't concern them at all, that was 50% or a little bit, that's 30%. That's the problem. Okay, we're going to end the debate there. I appreciate you all joining me. Thank you very much indeed. Joining me now is Palestinian Ambassador to the UK, Dr. Hussam Zomlo. Dr Zomlo, welcome back to Uncensored. What is your reaction to what is happening with these elections in Israel? Well, Pears, thank you for having me back. I have to share with you first my outrage for our children in Gaza today and last night, and for our families in the West Bank, all have been glued to their TV sets following the outcome of the Israeli elections because we are the only people on earth that our lives literally existentially get affected by Israeli elections when we have no say in it. And we do not even take part in such elections because any government in Israel will decide who live and who dies in Palestine. And I am outraged and really disheartened for them to watch it again that the Israeli voters have voted for genocide, have voted for ethnic cleansing, have voted for bombs and have voted for annihilating them. And therefore, this is a sad day, really a sad sad day for all of us and we need to think and think again about all that we have been discussing. You and I, Pears, for all these years. I mean, seriously, a change can come from Israel today. No change came from Israel. No hope came from Israel today. It was a confirmation, a confirmation that this isn't about Netanyahu or Bingvier or Smotrich. Those Netanyahu, Smotrich, Bingvier are not the cause. They are the outcome of a critical mass in Israel that believe in Netanyahu, believe in the zero-sum game, have no future for us in their thinking. Believe in the power of weapons to bomb their way into security, to bomb not just the Palestinians, to bomb Lebanon, Syria, the whole region. This is very concerning and this brings us to the key point. Peace has to be imposed, my friend. It must be imposed by the international community. And that's exactly why what happened here in the UK, by the UK government, over the last few weeks is hopeful. It's very hopeful when the foreign secretary here stands and say the UK government defines the whole thing, the occupation as unlawful illegal and shall impose sanctions to change the calculus among the Israeli public is the right step in the right direction. And this is where we want to go. We want to make sure that this announcement is enforced, false sanctions, comprehensive. So the Israeli public are met with, faced with two choices. Either they continue on this path or they actually change course and believe that international law matters and that the international community has it's sake and that the Palestinian people have rights and you cannot have perpetual wars. You cannot have perpetual conflict. And this needs to also, the scope of it has to be widened so the sanctions can be felt by every Israeli who chooses the fast, the perpetual war and the annihilation, the negation of an entire nation. And the UK need to lead, must lead, not just follow. Lead the global campaign to change that calculus in Israel once and for all. I will repeat, Pierce. Change will not come from inside Israel. Change has to be enforced. We must change their thinking and calculus and think of South Africa, think of all other models. Without that enforced well of the international community, we're going to have the children of Gaza and all the households in the West Bank. The Palestinians, the people of the region still waiting for the savior from Israel. That savior will not come. The savior is us, all of us collectively, our legality, our values and our international law. The significance are otherwise of what is being called the Arab Party block in the election. From what you're saying and the passion that you're saying at the moment, you clearly don't think that's going to make any material difference. And yet people within Israel say, well, actually, because of this huge turnout by the Arab Israelis, and I'm interested what how you call Arab Israelis. Do you call them Palestinians? Do you call them Arabs? Do you call them Arab Israelis? Because there's clearly not an agreement about how they are categorized. But do you not think you're significant that they may hold a balance of power here? And I put it to you for example, that it could be that either Netanyahu or Isaac, they do a deal with the Arab block parties. And as a consequence, Ben Giveran Smodrich, who to me are the worst members of his current government, that they would lose any power, which would be an improvement on the situation at the moment. Do you do not see anything there that which is encouraging to you? No, I see. And I see that was the main home of yesterday's election, the Palestinian citizens of Israel. This is what they call themselves. It doesn't matter what I call them or you call them. They are an integral part of the Palestinian people just happen to stay on their land, in their homes, in the events of the Nakba. So they are the actual original cause of the Palestinians. They are the purest Palestinians you can ever have. And the fact that they have voted in such high level yesterday tells you how existentially the threat against them. They really felt that it's their existence that was under threat over the last so many years, particularly by Netanyahu, Ben Giveran Smodrich. And their mobilization was to send Netanyahu and Ben Giveran Smodrich home on the one hand, on the other hand, they are the only parties in Israel that still call for ending Israeli occupation, still call for equality. None of the other Israeli Zionist parties call for that. And the issue is with the opposition, not just with the Netanyahu block, all the opposition parties, except one, have said that they will not deal with the Palestinian political parties inside Israel. They will not form a government with them. The racism appears, the supremacy, the sense of entitlement and chosenness among the Israeli Zionist parties is just unprecedented. Yes, it's good news that they have gotten almost 19 seats until I followed the last few minutes. That's historic in every sense. And that will allow them to protect themselves to advance their interest, to fight the crime that is spreading, festering in their cities and towns harvesting the lives of many hundreds of their children, of their people everywhere inside Israel, without, in fact, without any intervention by the Israeli state. In fact, in some occasions, like with Ben Giver, promoting and encouraging these criminal attacks against our people. So this is an opportunity for them to do so. And if the other Israeli political parties find a way to partner with them on the basis of ending Israel's occupation on the basis of recognising the inelienable rights of the Palestinian people on the basis of respecting international law and establishing neighbouring relationships that will be a matter of hope, but I regret to tell you it doesn't look like this is going to be the case. The final question, the Palestinian elections have been delayed again according to President Abbas until September 2027. They've blamed Israel's security situation in the Palestinian territories full of delay, but the fact remains, the Palestinians have not had legislative or presidential elections for 20 years since Hamas seized control of Gaza in the last one. Abbas has been there, you know, interminably it seems to me. The Israelis point to what they're doing and say, well, at least we're having elections at least we have a democracy. Why are the Palestinians on their side not having elections and constantly delaying it? Every 10 Israeli Kinesi elections since the last Palestinian election? Well, you're absolutely right and we must have elections. Elections are over you and it is absolutely the right of the Palestinian people and the demand by the Palestinian people to have elections to choose their leaders and to commit to the renewal of the democratic process. Absolutely and if we pride with the Palestinians ourselves of anything, it's that is that our ability over the years and the decades to conduct free and national elections. But the situation is very difficult when the elections were announced to be held next month in November. The assumption was that the Trump plan will get you know, we'll get implemented that Gaza will have some sort of some governance mechanisms, you will have a police, you will have institutions that is able, including the Palestinian Technocratic Committee, is able to oversee elections with the overall supervision of the Palestinian Central Committee for elections that didn't materialize and guess who refused the Trump plan and the actual phase two of that cease-fire announcement, it was Netanyahu. So how do you convene elections during genocide? I mean, I mean elections is a tool for the people to deliver their verdict. So you do that under the Israeli bombs and the situation in the West Bank and I have followed peers you've been following. The spread of terrorism is really Jewish settler terrorism all over. It's rampaging. It's terrible. It's horrible and I've heard you saying that this straight forward terrorism. So to offer elections for people that are being terrorized on a daily basis is missing the point and this brings me to the whole thing. We must convene elections and I think elections will be convened this coming year and we must all work together piece to make sure that the Palestinian people deliver their verdict and choose their leaders. However, you know, this whole idea of an externally imposed reform on a people under occupation, occupied nation is really a trick. It's a trick. It's a tactic to delay the inevitable. It's a tactic to always blame the Palestinians for being occupied, for being genocide, for being ethnically cleansed and they would change the goalpost all the time. It's almost like a bottleness, a bottleness, a bottleness, well, no matter what you do, they will invent a new sort of wish list for it because it's not really genuine. It's not designed to actually achieve the outcome over to state solution. It's designed to block it. They will tell you the Palestinians have the wrong leaders, they will tell you the Palestinians have elected, even if we convene elections, the wrong leaders and so forth. Reform every government on earth is a need of reform and reform must be an ongoing process. And guess which government that is in need of desperate reform right this moment? It's the government of Israel. There, the international community must focus with us to reform the supremacist, racist mentality, to reform this criminal mentality, to reform this mentality they can live forever subjugating and entire people and not just the people of Palestine, the entire people of the region. We need reform there. However, we need to go on, continue on our journey and make sure that our right to self-determination, our right to establish our own independent state, is not linked or conditioned to anything. It is an inalienable right, it is a barf right and we must not accept the argument that the Palestinians have to behave in a certain way. So we are free. Our freedom comes with no attachment whatsoever appears. Ambassador Zomler, always good to have you on our sensor. Thank you very much. Thank you. For a long time now, we've been racking our brains about how we can bring you even more unsensitive without making our small team work 24 hours a day instead of the current 23. And with that lofty goal in mind, we are thrilled to announce the unsensitive club. It's the new home of extra content which only you get to see. What in the hairy depths of Harry Hel is going on? It was not intrinsically nasty. Can he put a curse on you? Plus out free episodes and exclusive insights as well as priority access to AMAs, live events and big interviews without making you can support the show that you love most or get the whole lot. We know that you watch and listen to all of our shows for all sorts of different reasons and we've made sure there is something here for everybody. The unsensitive mission has always been to inform, educate, irritate and entertain by giving you every side of every story. Real honest opinions you might not find anywhere else. You may disagree with my views. Some of our guests and our hosts do too but that's the point. We're independent and nobody tells us what to say. That sounds like you, but join the club.