Jeremy Scahill i Ro Khanna SUKOBLJAVAJU se oko palestinskog oružanog otpora i Željezne kupole

Croatian 30:28

Palestinian armed resistance and self-determinationU.S. military aid to IsraelIsraeli defense systems (Iron Dome)Double standards in international conflictIsraeli occupation and apartheid

Size Color BG

Language Original English

Ova rasprava između novinara Jeremyja Scahilla i američkog kongresmena Ro Khanna fokusira se na suprotstavljene pristupe rješavanju izraelskih vojnih akcija i palestinskog otpora. Khanna izlaže svoje političke stavove, uključujući pozive na nultu vojnu pomoć Izraelu, zabranu vojne prodaje koja se koristi za ubijanje civila i priznavanje izraelskog aparthejda i genocida u Gazi. Međutim, Scahill dovodi u pitanje Khanninu obranu izraelskog sustava Iron Dome, tvrdeći da omogućuje izraelskim vojnim operacijama nekažnjivost. Temeljna napetost nastaje kada Scahill pita imaju li Palestinci pravo napasti izraelske vojne baze—pitanje na koje Khanna odbija odgovoriti potvrdno. Scahill tvrdi da to predstavlja dvostruke standarde: ako Izrael može odgovoriti na napade na vojne baze 7. listopada bombardiranjem Gaze, zašto Palestinci ne mogu napasti naoružane izraelske vojne ciljeve? Khanna se poziva na nenasilne tradicije Martina Luthera Kinga Jr. i Gandhija, dok Scahill odgovara referencama na opravdane pobune robova i ograničenja s kojima se Palestinci suočavaju pod okupacijom. Rasprava također obuhvaća palestinske perspektive o oružanom otporu kao odgovoru na neuspjele diplomatske kanale, fragmentaciju palestinskog društva pod okupacijom i ulogu neovisnog novinarstva u pokrivanju ovih spornim pitanjima.

Key Points

Article fallback: English article is shown while the page remains in Croatian.

Jeremy Scahill and Congressman Ro Khanna debate the legitimacy of Palestinian armed resistance, Israeli defense systems, and U.S. military aid to Israel, with Scahill pressing Khanna on what he sees as a double standard in denying Palestinians the right to attack military targets while accepting Israeli military operations.

Summary

This debate between journalist Jeremy Scahill and U.S. Congressman Ro Khanna centers on competing approaches to addressing Israeli military actions and Palestinian resistance. Khanna outlines his policy positions, including calls for zero military aid to Israel, no military sales used to kill civilians, and recognition of Israeli apartheid and genocide in Gaza. However, Scahill challenges Khanna's defense of Israel's Iron Dome system, arguing it enables Israeli military operations with impunity. The core tension emerges when Scahill asks whether Palestinians have a right to attack Israeli military bases—a question Khanna declines to affirm. Scahill argues this represents a double standard: if Israel can respond to October 7th attacks on military bases by bombing Gaza, why cannot Palestinians attack armed Israeli military targets? Khanna appeals to nonviolent traditions of Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi, while Scahill counters with references to justified slave rebellions and the constraints Palestinians face under occupation. The discussion also covers Palestinian perspectives on armed resistance as a response to failed diplomatic channels, the fracturing of Palestinian society under occupation, and the role of independent journalism in covering these contested questions.

Key takeaways

Khanna supports zero military aid to Israel, no military sales for weapons used against civilians, and recognition of Israeli apartheid and genocide in Gaza, but defends Israel's right to maintain the Iron Dome defense system.
Scahill argues that allowing Israel access to Iron Dome technology enables Israeli military operations with impunity, framing it as protecting 'the sniper' rather than genuinely defending civilians.
Khanna denies Palestinians have a right to attack Israeli military bases, while Scahill identifies this as a double standard when Israel is permitted to respond militarily to attacks on its military targets.
Khanna invokes nonviolent resistance traditions of Gandhi and King as a model for Palestinian resistance, whereas Scahill references justified armed resistance in history, including slave rebellions.
Palestinians have exhausted formal diplomatic channels including the United Nations and Oslo Accords; armed resistance is framed as a final recourse when nonviolent approaches fail.
Comprehensive economic sanctions on Israel—including restrictions on banking and corporations operating in occupied territories—are presented as an alternative to armed resistance and conditional military aid positions.
Khanna's position reflects a broader political pattern among American politicians who express Palestinian solidarity while carving out exceptions to Palestinian rights, contrasted with Scahill's willingness to articulate more absolute positions on Palestinian self-determination.

Full article

Opening Remarks on Israeli Policy and Palestinian Suffering

Jeremy Scahill begins by acknowledging that many people deeply concerned about the apartheid state of Israel and the genocide in Gaza find it refreshing to hear a member of Congress speak critically on these issues. He notes that Congressman Khanna has used this opportunity to highlight specific cases of Palestinians. Scahill then pivots to asking what consequences Khanna believes Israel should face, not only for its military actions but also for the documented mass killing of roughly eight thousand people in Gaza—a figure he suggests is likely much higher, with a significant portion being children.

The Iron Dome Controversy

Scahill acknowledges having heard Khanna discuss sanctioning individuals and frame certain weapons as offensive or inherently lethal to civilians. However, he wants to press Khanna specifically on his defense of the Iron Dome system. Scahill contends that much of the critique from pro-Palestine advocates and Palestinians themselves is that Khanna's position essentially amounts to ensuring "the sniper is protected so that he can continue sniping." This characterization sets up the central tension of their debate.

Khanna's Policy Positions on Military Aid

Khanna responds by laying out a comprehensive list of his stated positions. He says he has called for zero military aid to Israel and supports the Massie amendment to that effect, describing it as a major vote coming up that week. He has also called for no military sales to Israel used to kill civilians, no military integration, and led efforts to repeal sections 224 and 219, which he describes as Netanyahu's "end run" allowing co-production of military equipment. Khanna emphasizes that he has called for recognizing Israel as an apartheid state and acknowledging genocide in Gaza.

Khanna frames these positions on a scale of one to ten, saying they represent moving "from one to seven or eight," with the debate being whether to go to nine or ten. He distinguishes his position from a complete arms embargo, which he says he has not supported. His view, he explains, is that "anyone should be able to protect civilian life," though he clarifies that this is not about America supporting such protection. He argues the United States is not funding the Iron Dome system itself.

Immediate Actions for the Next Administration

Khanna suggests that rather than discussing abstract long-term peace processes, the next administration could take concrete steps within the first hundred days. These would include demanding the arrest of "Yonan levy and extremist settlers," demanding the destruction of every outpost and illegal settlement within that timeframe, and demanding justice for Palestinians to stop their terrorization. He frames these as directives that should come from the American administration, stating "Israel must do this," rather than as dialogue.

Scahill's Challenge to the Iron Dome Position

Scahill responds that he does not believe Khanna is adequately addressing the fundamental question. He pushes back on the distinction between Netanyahu and his right-wing government, pointing out that public opinion polling shows widespread support for openly genocidal policies in Israel. Netanyahu, Scahill notes, is often criticized by political opponents for not having "finished the job" in Gaza, Lebanon, or elsewhere. Scahill wants to understand why Khanna stops at defending the Iron Dome, given that his other statements represent clear recognition of the issues involved. He returns to his metaphor: "you still are saying, but the sniper needs to have protection."

Defining the Position on Military Technology

Khanna clarifies that his position and that of Bernie Sanders, AOC, and others is for zero military aid to Israel and no military sales of weapons used to kill civilians. Scahill counters that the Iron Dome itself is used to kill civilians because "it allows the Israelis to have this American backing to operate with impunity." He argues that by publicly supporting this military technology for Israel, Khanna is effectively saying that when Israel attacks other countries that have a right to fight back, the United States backs the sniper's ability to continue sniping.

Khanna denies this characterization, stating that he is not saying the United States should fund the Iron Dome. Rather, he is saying the United States "shouldn't be restricting Israel from being able to get the Iron Dome or be able to develop the Iron Dome technology." Scahill presses further: given everything else Khanna is saying makes sense, why stop there? To Scahill, this appears to be "trying to have it both ways on this issue," allowing Khanna to claim support for defending Israeli civilians while actually defending "the sniper's ability to keep killing because it won't face the ultimate accountability, which is a total embargo on all support for an apartheid state."

The Question of Innocent Civilians

Khanna raises the concern of innocent Israeli civilians, including the twenty percent Arab Israeli population. He argues there is no need to "put their lives at risk" to achieve the goals of stopping apartheid and occupation. Scahill responds that Israel itself puts Israeli civilian lives at risk by waging what he calls genocidal wars with the support of a significant portion of its own population. By allowing even qualified support for Israel's defense systems, Scahill argues, Khanna is enabling this dynamic. He contends that the accountability should lie on American policy toward Israel, not remain abstract or hypothetical.

The October 7th Confrontation

Scahill then shifts the debate directly to the question of Palestinian armed resistance. He asks Khanna pointedly: "Do Palestinians have a right to kill Israeli soldiers? Congressman, on October 7th, when they attacked the military bases in the Gaza envelope, did the Qassam Brigades and Saraya Al-Quds have a right to kill Israeli soldiers? Yes or no?" Khanna initially characterizes the October 7th attack as a terrorist attack. Scahill clarifies that the first targets hit on the morning of October 7th were multiple military bases, asking again whether Palestinian forces had a right to attack those military bases.

Khanna reiterates that he is "not for violent violence in any way" and wants to ensure the occupation ends, but he does not directly affirm a Palestinian right to attack Israeli military bases. When pressed again—"Do they have a right to attack Israeli soldiers?"—Khanna says plainly: "No. I'm not going to say that Hamas had a right to attack Israeli soldiers or kill Israelis. Like I don't think that advances peace or advances Palestinian statehood."

The Double Standard Argument

Scahill then poses a parallel question: "Does Israel have a right to drop a single bomb on Gaza in response to October 7th?" Khanna responds that he believes Israel had the right to "get people who killed civilians," but not in the way it actually went about it, which he acknowledges constitutes genocide. Scahill seizes on this apparent contradiction: Khanna is saying Palestinians do not have the right to attack military bases that were running killing operations on October 5th or 6th, 2023, before October 7th. This, to Scahill, is a double standard—Israel can kill Palestinians, but there is supposedly never a condition under which Palestinians can attack armed, uniformed soldiers of an occupying force under international law.

Nonviolence and Historical Reference

Khanna appeals to the tradition of Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi, noting that his father and grandfather were imprisoned. He believes King and Gandhi would argue for a much more nonviolent approach by Palestinians, not armed resistance to Israeli occupation. Scahill challenges this, asking whether King would say "it's okay to attack the Viet Cong, but I don't want them to kill" the occupiers. He references slave rebellions, which he argues were justified against those "raping, hanging, murdering Africans who had been kidnapped."

Palestinian Voices and Resistance Framing

Khanna counters that he spends most of his time talking with and working with Palestinians. He says most of the Palestinians he meets are not talking about the kind of armed resistance Scahill is advocating for; they simply want to live in dignity and peace without Israeli settler oppression. Scahill acknowledges this but points out that Khanna, as a United States Congressman, is effectively justifying certain Israeli attacks on Palestinians while drawing a line that prevents any Palestinian from attacking the armed forces of a nation state backed by the United States. According to Scahill, Khanna cannot find justification for Palestinians to attack soldiers posted at military bases enforcing an illegal occupation through "murder and forced starvation and deprivation."

Effectiveness of Armed Resistance

Scahill asks how Khanna reconciles these two positions. He suggests that armed resistance will be ineffective given the power differentials involved—a position similar to what Gandhi believed regarding nonviolent resistance against the British Empire. Khanna argues that civil resistance and moral force, appealing to the world's conscience, offer a much better chance of achieving dignity and peace than armed resistance. The debate ends without resolution, with the two men holding fundamentally different views on the legitimacy of Palestinian armed resistance and the implications of American military support to Israel.

The Great March of Return and Israeli Military Response

In 2019, the Palestinians organized the Great March of Return, which was a mass nonviolent mobilization at the gates of the concentration camp walls and fence in Gaza. Israeli soldiers responded by holding a competition to see who could shoot the most kneecaps of Palestinians. This incident provides important context for understanding Palestinian perspectives on resistance and the constraints they face.

Shifting American Opinion and the Question of Armed Resistance

Opinion is shifting in America regarding Palestinian tactics and approaches to resistance. The question of whether armed resistance is justified remains contested, particularly among American political figures and the broader public. There is disagreement about how to contextualize Palestinian resistance in relation to the occupation and the violence Palestinians face daily.

One speaker noted that Hamas would not exist if there was no occupation, and that the moment the occupation ceases to exist is the moment the need to resist ceases to exist. This framing suggests that resistance is a response to occupation rather than an ideological commitment. Another speaker pointed out the double standard in the debate: Palestinians living in the West Bank face constant violence and cannot even travel to where their children were killed without wearing bulletproof vests. Parents cannot defend themselves against settlers without risking being shot by Israeli police. The situation is fundamentally violent, and while peace is a goal worth pursuing, the immediate reality on the ground requires Palestinians to find ways to protect themselves.

One speaker recounted an encounter with an American citizen whose family home was invaded by 150 settlers. When she asked Israeli police why she didn't defend herself, they blamed her—yet if she had physically resisted, she would have been shot. This illustrates the asymmetry Palestinians face: while Americans invoke the Second Amendment as a right to self-defense, Palestinians are stripped of that same right. The speaker noted that while we might wish to be romantic about the situation, the practical reality is that sometimes the only way to defend yourself is through armed resistance.

International Approaches and Diplomatic Efforts

Palestinians have exhausted many formal channels for resolution. They have appealed to the United Nations, participated in the Oslo Accords, and pursued multiple diplomatic avenues. When these approaches have failed to produce results, armed resistance becomes a final recourse. The question then becomes not whether armed resistance exists, but how the international community should respond to a state that is relentlessly violent toward a captive population.

One speaker suggested that if armed resistance is not going to be acknowledged as legitimate, then the playing field must be leveled in other ways. This could include an arms embargo on Israel, stopping military sales and aid, ensuring trials at the International Court of Justice to hold people accountable for war crimes and genocide, and working internationally to prevent the protection of Israel's apartheid or genocidal policies.

Sanctions and the Israeli Economy

During a visit to the region, Rahm Emanuel made a notable statement about the need to sanction the Israeli banking system and any Israeli corporation operating in occupied territory. When challenged that this would effectively sanction the entire Israeli economy, Emanuel affirmed that this was necessary. One speaker indicated support for such comprehensive sanctions, noting that if banks cannot access international markets, they cannot fund settlements or purchase components like Iron Dome systems. While domestically produced weapons might still be manufactured, cutting off financial support for settlements would be significant—settlements would collapse without financing.

Political Positioning and the Role of Figures Like Ro Khanna

Ro Khanna, a U.S. congressman, has been willing to engage in conversation about these issues, which is relatively unusual for American political figures. However, his position reflects a broader pattern among politicians from AOC to Bernie Sanders: they project solidarity with the Palestinian people but ultimately carve out their own exceptions when it comes to Palestinian rights. Khanna's framing draws a distinction between what he views as moral but also politically possible in American politics, invoking the example of Abraham Lincoln, who was anti-slavery but not an abolitionist.

The Lincoln analogy is significant. Throughout his life, Lincoln opposed slavery but distinguished himself from abolitionists, who were viewed as radicals outside respectable politics. Abolitionists quietly supported Lincoln's election, believing he was with them even if he would not say so publicly. Lincoln built a coalition that included abolitionists while avoiding their rhetoric. In this dynamic, Jeremy Scahill functions as the "crazy abolitionist" willing to say publicly what others may privately believe, while Khanna represents the politician building coalitions within the constraints of mainstream acceptability.

The Limits of Personal Testimony

While Khanna should be credited for engaging with these issues and traveling to occupied territories, his conversations over a few days cannot be taken as representative of Palestinian public opinion as a whole. Many Palestinians will not openly discuss armed resistance with an American congressman, particularly one visiting an area of the West Bank. The West Bank itself is not monolithic: there is a bourgeois class in places like Ramallah where official visitors are typically taken to meet with Palestinian Authority officials and dine in nice restaurants. This elite circle's experience differs dramatically from that of Palestinians in refugee camps in Tulkarem or Jenin, where armed resistance is more directly connected to daily violence and where Palestinians have been killed not only by the Israeli military but by the Palestinian Authority itself.

When public opinion polling on armed resistance in Palestine is examined, it shows significant support—support that cannot be dismissed based on selective conversations. Palestinian journalists and activists face arrest for expressing views similar to those being discussed here. Those with the resources and platforms to speak often do so at considerable personal risk. The fact that Palestinian colleagues frequently tell international journalists, "You're saying things that would get me arrested," underscores the constraints on Palestinian expression and the importance of international media coverage of these perspectives.

The Role of Independent Journalism

Journalists covering Palestine operate in a landscape where much of the media narrative, particularly from right-wing sources, frames coverage as dishonest and questions the patriotism of those reporting from Gaza and the occupied West Bank. Despite these pressures, independent media outlets have conducted numerous interviews and reported extensively on Palestinian perspectives and experiences. The responsibility of journalism is to present these perspectives even when they complicate relationships with political figures who are generally sympathetic to Palestinian concerns. This is particularly important given that some Palestinian colleagues have been murdered in the course of reporting, and given the deep personal stakes involved—knowing Palestinians whose entire families have been decimated, having Palestinian friends who have lost over 200 family members in Gaza.

The distinction being made here is not a gotcha exercise but a matter of journalistic integrity. When an American politician claims that Palestinians do not have justification for armed resistance while simultaneously accepting that Israel has justification for dropping bombs on Gaza, that contradiction deserves public scrutiny. It is precisely because Khanna has done meaningful work on Palestinian issues that it becomes important to have this discourse with him and with other figures like Bernie Sanders—to clarify where consensus ends and where fundamental disagreements remain.

The Fractured Nature of Palestinian Experience

There are multiple experiences within Palestinian society, which is by design—the population is very fractured, and everybody has their own version of what the occupation means and how it is experienced. This fragmentation shapes how Palestinians understand and articulate their own circumstances.

Generational Shift in Palestinian Advocacy

My father's generation was the generation that made the argument to the world that Palestinians are human. Their plea was simple: just please see us as human. But I think we're past that point now. Palestinians are no longer asking merely to be recognized as human. We deserve the same rights as anybody else. We deserve a military. We deserve free access and connection to the world. The framework has shifted fundamentally.

We're past the point of looking at Palestinians as just victims. Now Palestinians are demanding recognition of their full political and civil standing. We're talking face to face now—it's not just a matter of asking for protection. It's a demand for equality and sovereignty.

Recognition of Complexity in Advocacy Work

I really appreciate what we saw here today, because I don't want us to fall into the practice of just applauding people for looking and speaking out. We need to be critical, especially when we see countries that have joined efforts like the Hague group but have simultaneously made millions through their relationships with Israel on the side. We are at a point in the movement where that kind of scrutiny and accountability matters.

That's a well-made point. We have Abdullah Al-Arian standing by, but Maisa Mustafa just did some really important reporting from the occupied West Bank, and we'll make sure to amplify that in the context of this discussion on our social media feeds. Maisa, thanks so much for being on the ground there and doing such terrific reporting.

Topics#Palestinian armed resistance and self-determination#U.S. military aid to Israel#Israeli defense systems (Iron Dome)#Double standards in international conflict#Israeli occupation and apartheid#Nonviolent versus armed resistance#Palestinian civilians and occupation#American foreign policy and Middle East#International sanctions and accountability

Transcript (Croatian)

Click any row to jump to that moment in the video.

0:00 Zastupnik Connor, želim reći kao, objektivno mislim, puno ljudi, um, koji su bili duboko zabrinuti oko, uh, Apartheid država Izraela, uh, genocid u Gazi, um, to je osvježavajuće čuti, uh, član Kongresa govori na ovaj način.

0:17 I činjenica da i vi imate, iskoristili su ovu priliku kako bi pokušali istaknuti, uh, specifične slučajeve Palestinaca.

0:25 Um, želim vas pitati, međutim, što mislite da posljedice za Izrael ne bi trebale biti samo od te akcije, ali i za masovno ubojstvo, uh, dokumentiranih otprilike 8000 ljudi.

0:38 To je vjerojatno mnogo veće od onoga u Gazi, a značajan dio njih su djeca.

0:43 Čuo sam da govorite o kažnjavanju pojedinaca.

0:46 Uh, čuo sam raspravu koju vi i Bernie Sanders nudite o ofenzivnom oružju ili oružju koje ubija civile.

0:53 Ali čuo sam i vašu obranu Iron Domea, i želim vas gurati na ovo, jer mislim da je puno kritika. Od pro-palestinskog naroda i od Palestinaca, je li to stajalište koje zagovaraš u osnovi jednako?

1:07 Moramo se pobrinuti da je snajper zaštićen kako bi mogao nastaviti pucati.

1:15 Pa, ako pogledamo cijenim pitanje i odgovorit ću na njega konkretno.

1:20 Ali ako pogledate sve stvari za koje sam pozvao, rekao sam nula osam Izraelu i podržavam ga. The Massie amendment that does that, that's going to be a big vote coming up this week.

1:30 Rekao sam da nema vojne prodaje Izraelu, uh, to se koristi za ubijanje civila.

1:37 Rekao sam ne, uh, vojne integracije i vodio borbu za ukidanje odjeljka 224 i 219, koji je Netanyahuov kraj trčanja, gdje bi samo su-proizvodili, uh, the, the, the, uh, vojsku.

1:53 Rekao sam da to treba nazvati apartheidom i priznati genocid.

1:58 Dakle, to je na ljestvici od 1 do 10.

2:02 Znate da je to kao odlazak s jednog na sedam ili osam.

2:04 A rasprava je u redu, 9 ili 10.

2:07 Učinim embargo na oružje potpuno, što nisam podržao, rekao bih da Izrael ne može čak ni dobiti ili proizvesti od bilo koga obrambenog.

2:15 Željezni dom.

2:16 I mislim da je moje mišljenje, znate, da svatko treba biti u stanju zaštititi civilni život, ali, uh, to nije Amerika koja ga podržava.

2:25 Međutim, mislim da postoji nešto što bi sljedeća administracija mogla učiniti u prvih 100 dana umjesto samo reći: "U redu, razgovarat ćemo apstraktno o tome". ovaj dug mirovni proces, zahtijevaju uhićenje Yunnanovih pristojbi i ekstremističkih naseljenika unutar 100 dana, zahtijevaju uništenje svakog vanjskog položaja unutar 100 dana, Zahtijevaju uništenje ilegalnih naselja u roku od 100 dana, traže pravdu za Palestince i palestinski narod kako bi prestali biti terorizirani unutar 100 dana.

2:55 To ne mora biti neki dijalog koji treba biti direktiva američke administracije koja kaže: Izrael to mora učiniti i mi moramo poduzeti korake kako se krećemo prema širem miru u tom smjeru.

3:08 Mislim da je to jedna od stvari koje su izašle iz ovog putovanja, neposrednost, uh, patnje Palestinaca.

3:15 Još uvijek ne mislim da to odgovara na pitanje.

3:18 Mislim, reci mi gdje sam pogriješio ovdje, za što se zagovaraš.

3:21 Ne govorimo samo o Netanjahuu.

3:24 Znate, Sanders uvijek kaže da je Netanyahu i njegova ekstremistička desničarska vlada.

3:27 Ali ako pogledate ankete javnog mnijenja, postoji široka potpora otvorenim politikama genocida.

3:33 U stvari, Netanjahu često kritiziraju njegovi politički protivnici zbog toga što nije završio svoj posao u Gazi, Libanonu ili drugdje.

3:42 I želim znati zašto se zaustavljate na ovome, jer toliko toga što ste To je jedno od najjasnijih prepoznavanja problema koje možete čuti od američkog političara.

3:53 Ipak, um, vi, vi, još uvijek govorite, ali snajper treba imati zaštitu.

4:02 To nije snajper.

4:03 To znači da je The.

4:05 To nismo samo mi.

4:06 Dakle, ne postoji nedvosmislenost u mojoj poziciji, uh, koja je također i pozicija Sandersa ili AOC-a ili drugih.

4:14 Kao što razumijem, to je da imamo nultu vojnu pomoć Izraelu, da nemamo vojne prodaje. to, uh, koriste se za ubijanje vojnog oružja koje se koristi za ubijanje civila.

4:26 Dakle, to je problem.

4:27 Iron Dome se koristi za ubijanje.

4:29 Tvrdim da se Iron Dome koristi za ubijanje civila jer omogućuje Izraelcima da imaju američku potporu kako bi djelovali bez kazne.

4:38 Otvoreno govoreći da podržavam ovu vojnu tehnologiju za Izrael.

4:42 Ono što kažete je da kada Izrael napadne druge, uh, zemlje koje imaju pravo boriti se natrag, da su ujedinjeni taj moj stav je da To je snajper, volio bih da on nije radio pucnjavu, ali taj strijelac ima pravo na to da Sjedinjene Države brane svoje pucnjave.

5:00 Ali ja, ali ne mislim da je to slučaj.

5:02 Ako zaustavimo svu vojnu pomoć i prestanemo im davati oružje, da ubijemo druge, a mi ih prestajemo štititi u UN-u i mi tražimo, akcije, uh, u smislu pravde, ja Nemojte misliti da je to njihova politika, bilo Netanyahu ili bilo što drugo.

5:19 Hoćete li to reći o apartheidu u Južnoj Africi?

5:21 Čuo sam da razgovarate.

5:22 Pa, jer mislim da zato što radim još jedan primjer gdje kažete da je u redu nastaviti s bilo kojom razinom podrške otvorenom genocidu. društvo koje je masovno ubilo 8.000 ljudi, više od 300 medijskih radnika, napalo Libanon, bombardiralo Iran.

5:36 I vi kažete, oh, ali moramo zaštititi civile.

5:38 Ne radi se o zaštiti civila.

5:40 Najveća prijetnja njihovim civilima je njihova politika.

5:43 I tako ne razumijem zašto imate čak i jedan kvalificirani komad podrške za, uh, Maskirajući se kao jedina demokracija na Bliskom istoku.

5:54 No, ne kažem da bi Sjedinjene Države trebale podupirati financiranje željezne kupole.

5:58 Samo zato što smo jasni, kažem da ne smijemo ograničavati Izrael. biti u mogućnosti dobiti Iron Dome ili biti u stanju razviti tehnologiju Iron Dome.

6:08 Pa, zaustavljam sve ostalo što kažete ima toliko smisla.

6:11 Zašto se ovdje zaustavljate?

6:11 Osjećam se kao da pokušavate imati to na oba načina o ovom pitanju.

6:14 Dakle, možete reći, dobro, ja zapravo podržavam, znate, obranu izraelskih civila.

6:17 Ne branite izraelske civile s tom politikom.

6:20 Vi branite sposobnost snajperista da nastavi ubijati jer se neće suočiti s konačna odgovornost, što je totalni embargo na svaku potporu državi apartheida.

6:28 Da, ja, ne mislim da morate riskirati da ćete se složiti da u Izraelu postoje nevini civili, zar ne?

6:34 Uključujući, uh, 20% biti, uh, Arapski Izraelci.

6:38 Mislim, ja, samo ne mislim da morate riskirati svoje živote kako biste postigli ciljeve zaustavljanja apartheida i okupacije.

6:48 Uh, Izrael ugrožava svoje živote, ali Izrael prijeti svojim životima vođenjem genocidnih ratova uz potporu znatnog dijela svoje države. Populacija, i omogućavajući im da kažu: dobro, snajper još uvijek treba imati svoju pokrivenost ili, dobro, znate, zaustavljam se na ovoj stvari.

7:03 Ono što kažete je da odgovornost tada ne laže na američkoj politici prema Izraelu.

7:09 To je vrsta nečeg abstraktnog.

7:10 No, izraelski civili mogu umrijeti.

7:12 Izraelski civili umiru u tim napadima zbog apartheida.

7:16 Znate li, Palestinci.

7:17 Imaju li Palestinci pravo ubiti izraelske vojnike?

7:19 Kongresmen, 7. listopada, kada su napali vojne baze u Gaze, učinio je Qassam brigade i Saraya Al-Quds imaju pravo ubiti izraelske vojnike?

7:27 Da ili ne? Tko? 7. listopada.

7:29 Who?

7:31 October 7th.

7:31 Jesu li Palestinci imali pravo napasti izraelske vojne baze u Gazi?

7:36 Da ili ne?

7:38 Mislim da je napad 7. listopada bio teroristički napad.

7:41 Dakle, nisam bio teroristički napad kada su oni.

7:43 Prvi ciljevi koji su pogođeni ujutro 7. listopada bili su višestruke vojne baze.

7:47 Jesu li palestinske snage imale pravo napasti te vojne baze?

7:52 Nisam za nasilno nasilje.

7:56 Opet, na bilo koji način.

7:57 Mislim, ja sam za osiguravanje da mi, uh, okončamo okupaciju kako bismo to učinili.

8:03 Imaju li oni pravo napasti izraelske vojnike?

8:08 No.

8:08 Neću reći da je Hamas imao pravo napasti izraelske vojnike ili ubiti Izraelce.

8:13 Kao što ja ne mislim da mir ili napredak, uh, um, palestinsku državu nije učinio Izrael.

8:23 Ima li Izrael pravo baciti jednu bombu na Gazu kao odgovor na 7. listopada?

8:29 Vjerujem da je Izrael imao pravo dobiti ljude koji su ubili, uh, civile, ali Ne na način na koji su to učinili, što sam ja rekao da je genocid.

8:39 Ali Palestinci nemaju pravo napasti same vojne baze koje izvode operacije ubojstva 6. listopada 2023. ili 5. listopada 2023.

8:49 To je dvostruki standard, kažete.

8:51 Postoje načini na koje bi Izrael trebao biti u stanju ubiti Palestince, ali nikada ne postoji uvjet pod kojim Palestinci mogu umrijeti. Može napasti naoružane, uniformirane vojnike snage koja se i dalje smatra okupacijskom silom prema međunarodnom pravu.

9:04 I don't make it make sense to me kako oni.

9:07 Ja dolazim iz tradicije, uh, kralja i Gandija.

9:10 Moj otac, djed bio je, uh, u zatvoru.

9:14 Znam za vašu obiteljsku povijest.

9:15 Mislite li da bi King rekao, dobro, to je sigurno da mogu.

9:18 Oni mogu napasti Viet Cong, ali ne želim da ih ubiju.

9:21 Uh, ja ne mislim na bilo koga, ja ne mislim, ja ne znam što bi Gandhi rekao.

9:25 Ne mislim da bi moj djed rekao da Palestinci trebaju imati oružani otpor, uh, izraelskoj okupaciji.

9:31 Mislim da bi se oni raspravljali o mnogo više nenasilnom pristupu.

9:36 Ali Amerika, mislim, u završnoj pomoći, uh, u završetku vojne prodaje, uh, u ne biti branitelj, Izrael, uh, u UN-u, samo, uh, veto rezolucije protiv Izraela bi napravio ogroman napredak.

9:52 Mislim, znate, možda sam ja, mi smo na ljestvici od 1 do 10 i ti si ja. Mislim da si u deset i ja kažem, idemo na šest, sedam, osam.

10:01 Ne znam gdje bi to moglo biti.

10:02 A sada je Amerika na jednoj točki.

10:04 Imamo deset godina jer imamo deset zbog genocida koji su omogućile, podržale, naoružale i financirale Sjedinjene Države.

10:10 I zbunjen sam kako možete reći da je Izrael imao pravo baciti jednu bombu na Gazu kao odgovor na 7. listopada.

10:17 Ali, prema vašem mišljenju, Palestinci nemaju pravo ikada ubiti Izraelca.

10:22 Palestinci imaju pravo na pravdu, što je, uh.

10:26 U tom slučaju, oni imaju pravo na oružani otpor protiv izraelskih vojnika u uniformi.

10:31 Imaju li ikada pravo ubiti izraelskog vojnika?

10:34 Mislim da ako je to samoobrana, ako su ako se osjećaju kao da jesu, uh, postoji ilegalni napad na njih od strane nasilnog naseljenika ili izraelskog vojnika.

10:44 A to je nezakonito.

10:46 U, u školi ili na civilu.

10:50 Uh, i onda, uh, naravno, oni bi trebali imati pravdu, ali cijela stvar je nezakonita.

10:56 Predstavnik cijele okupacije Gaze, upravljanje njihovom prehranom, rezanje travnjaka, stalno ubijanje njih.

11:04 Perspektiva mnogih Palestinaca je da ih se kolektivno kažnjava i da se bore za svoje. I da su baze koje okružuju Gazu bile glavni ubojice na vojnoj razini stanovništva Gaze.

11:18 Dakle, ono što razumijem, bilo da je riječ o Hamasu i islamskom džihadu ili neovisnim Palestincima, kako to da možete stati ovdje i na bilo koji način? Izraelske bombe padaju na Gazu, ali nikada ne mogu pronaći način da se to opravda. za Palestince da ubiju naoružanog vojnika sile koja je pod međunarodnim pravom i okupacijskom silom.

11:37 Ne razumijem to.

11:39 Zato što smatram da je to moja pozicija.

11:41 Pa, ja, ja, pogledat ću to, ali ne mislim da je rješenje u tom području poticanje.

11:47 Ali se bojite nasilnog pro-Hamasa.

11:50 To je ono na što se to kuha.

11:51 Budući da se kladim da smo privatno razgovarali s rekordom, a ja sam vam to rekao, priznaćete da ljudi diljem svijeta imaju pravo na otpor.

11:59 Na sve moguće načine potrebne.

12:01 Uvijek sam bio za mirni otpor, znate.

12:05 Ali kako je mirni otpor govoreći da su Izraelci baš kao, to je pod segregacijom?

12:09 Ne bih to rekao.

12:10 Idite ubiti ljude koji su, uh, uključeni u segregaciju protiv vas.

12:15 Mislim, ja sam mnogo više doktor King nego Malcolm X.

12:18 Mnogo je više da su pobune robova bile opravdane protiv ljudi koji su silovali, objesili i ubijali Afrikance koji su oteti.

12:24 I mean, I, Žao mi je.

12:26 Većinu dana i noći provodim razgovarajući s Palestincima, radeći s Palestincima.

12:30 Moj kolega Hossam Shabat bio je većina Palestinaca, većina Palestinaca.

12:35 Upoznala sam većinu Palestinaca s kojima sam se susrela, a možda nekoliko dana ne pričaju o vrsti oružanog otpora koji ste vi.

12:42 Oni samo žele živjeti svoj život u dostojanstvu i miru, a ne da ih Izraelci, naseljenici potiskuju.

12:49 Ali vi ste član američkog Kongresa koji opravdava, iako ste bili vrlo kritični prema izraelskom ratu protiv Gaze, ali Čini se da ste nacrtali liniju koja kaže da postoje neki slučajevi u kojima je Izrael opravdan za napad na Palestince, ali samo oni koji su odgovorni za 7. listopada.

13:05 Ali ne možete pronaći nikakvo opravdanje za bilo kojeg Palestinca da napadne same oružane snage koje djeluju pod zastavom države nacije koju podržavaju Sjedinjene Države.

13:16 I kažete da ne postoji uvjet pod kojim Palestinac ima pravo ubiti vojnike koji su upućeni u vojsku. temelje, izvršavanje ubojstvom i prisilnim izgladnjivanjem i oduzimanjem, nezakonitu okupaciju Gaze.

13:31 To je ono što za mene nema smisla.

13:32 Ne vidim kako možete pomiriti te dvije pozicije, jer mislim da je oružani otpor samo će biti. Neučinkovit s obzirom na razlike u moći je sličan onome što Gandhi mislio u smislu kako je preuzeo britansko carstvo, i to imajući Moralna snaga građanskog otpora i privlačenje savjesti svijeta bit će mnogo bolja prilika za dostojanstvo i mir.

14:00 Palestinci su 2019. organizirali Veliki marš Povratka, koji je bio masovni nenasilni. mobilizacija na vratima koncentracijskog logora i ograde u Gazi.

14:10 A znate li što su izraelski vojnici učinili, predstavnica Hanna?

14:12 Representative Hanna?

14:13 Oni su imali natjecanje o tome tko bi mogao pucati na najviše palestinskih koljena.

14:17 Mislim da me je podržao Yahya Sinwar, šef Hamasa.

14:22 Dakle, postoji track record u kontekstu.

14:24 Govorite o taktičkim pitanjima koje su Palestinci pokušali, a Palestinci.

14:28 Mislim da je postojalo mišljenje da se mišljenje smanjilo.

14:31 Mislim da se mišljenje sada mijenja u Americi, gdje bi takvi pristupi, uh, dobili bolji prijem u Sjedinjenim Državama.

14:41 Martha, što misliš?

14:45 Razgovarali smo malo o tome, jer se sjećam da ste nešto pitali uz linije ako je Hamas bio, um, znate, Ako postoji država i Hamas je, znate, upravljačko tijelo, hoćemo li biti u redu s tim?

15:01 I odgovorio sam: Hamas je bio vrlo, vrlo glasan da je od početka.

15:07 Hamas ne bi postojao da nije bilo okupacije.

15:10 Drugi put kad okupacija prestane postojati, drugi je dan kada potreba za otporom prestaje postojati.

15:16 Right?

15:17 Dakle, vidim što kažete, ali ja se slažem s Jeremyjem u smislu da postoji dvostruki standard za ono što govorite.

15:26 I vidjeli smo da ste se vidjeli sada kada ste bili na Zapadnoj obali, mnogi od tih roditelja koji govore o tome. njihova djeca koja su ubijena ne mogu ni otići tamo gdje je njihov sin ubijen bez vatrenog jastuka.

15:40 To je nasilno mjesto.

15:42 Bilo da to želimo ili ne.

15:43 Možemo govoriti o miru, ali nasilje je tu i jedini način da se često branimo.

15:49 To je s nasiljem, koje smo mi.

15:52 Što je nešto što se oduzima palestinskom građaninu.

15:55 Mogao bih biti u svojoj kući i mogao bih imati 50 naseljenika.

15:59 Razgovarao sam s američkim građaninom i usudio se.

16:01 150 naseljenika došlo je u našu kuću i izraelska policija rekla: "Zašto se niste branili?

16:06 I rekla je, to je.

16:07 Ja bih bio onaj koji će biti upucan ako se branim.

16:11 Dakle, postoji mnogo slučajeva u kojima koliko god želimo biti romantični o situaciji, imamo Drugu. Amandman ovdje u državama gdje bi, znate, mnogi ljudi rekli da je ovo najsigurnije mjesto na svijetu.

16:25 Ponekad je jedini način da se obranite, znate, oružanim otporom.

16:30 Dakle, ne znam, razgovarali smo o tome i ja, a cijenim da ste vi. Jeste li, slušali ste ljude jer smo vi to učinili, imali ste te razgovore na terenu.

16:41 Ali još uvijek mislim da postoji prostor za razumijevanje da to nije samo naoružano. Otpor ne postoji samo zato što, znate, to su nasilni ljudi.

16:56 It's, it's, it's the, to je kraj.

16:59 Pokušali smo, pokušali smo UN-a, pokušali smo, uh, pokušali smo Sporazume iz Osla, pokušali smo sve.

17:05 U konačnici, to je ono što se mora dogoditi, znate?

17:11 Yeah.

17:11 Samo mislim da je pitanje je li to promijenjeno u američkoj vanjskoj politici može, uh, otvoriti vrata. to, towards, uh, ending the occupation, uh, and, uh, and pursuing justice.

17:25 Ali, uh, znate, ja, ja, vi znate, ja ću ostaviti svoj položaj tamo.

17:32 Jedan od načina na koji razmišljam o tome je ako nećete priznati pravo, Znate, oružani otpor, igralište mora biti ravnomjerno na neki način.

17:43 Like what?

17:43 What what?

17:44 Kao da ne govorimo o embargu na oružje, imate državu koja je nemilosrdno nasilna prema zarobljenom stanovništvu.

17:56 Što bi to trajalo?

17:57 I, znate, Kongres je u fuziji izraelske i američke vojske.

18:03 I tako, da, da, trebalo bi ukloniti tu proviziju, zaustaviti vojnu prodaju, zaustaviti pomoć, uh, osigurati da su, uh, postojali. suđenja na ICCICJ držati, uh, ljudi odgovorni za ratne zločine, za genocid, uh, i, uh, kako bi bili sigurni da, uh, nismo zaštitili, uh, izraelski, uh, apartheid ili genocid u međunarodnim tijelima i radom s drugim zemljama da, to, to, to, uh, to, da potisne za, uh, pravdu u, u, u, u regiji.

18:43 I, mislim da je moje mišljenje da bi to donijelo značajan napredak.

18:48 Uh, i dok ste bili tamo, um, samo stvarno brzo, um, Rahm Emanuel je otišao u Tel Aviv u isto vrijeme kada ste bili tamo.

18:56 On, imao je zanimljiv trenutak, pomislio sam gdje je rekao, uh, izraelski bankarski sustav treba biti Svaka izraelska korporacija trebala bi biti sankcionirana ako uopće djeluje na okupiranom teritoriju.

19:14 I njegov upitnik se vratio i rekao: "Pa, to je cijela izraelska ekonomija.

19:20 Vi biste sankcionirali cijeli bankarski sustav i u osnovi svaku tvrtku u Izraelu.

19:25 And Rahm Emanuel said, yes, we need to sanction the.

19:28 S. dio BDS-a uvijek je bio onaj s najosjetljivijim zubima.

19:33 Um, hoćete li podržati potpunu sankcioniranje izraelskog bankarskog sustava ako postoje banke koje rade.

19:43 Yeah.

19:44 Yeah.

19:44 I vladinih dužnosnika.

19:46 I, znate, ja jesam, mislim u tom trenutku, onda ne mogu oni učinkovito jedva mogu kupiti ništa, neka. Samo, znate, oni ne bi mogli kupiti komponente Iron Dome-a ako bi ih napravili autohtoni.

19:57 Mislim da bi to mogli učiniti domaće.

19:59 Ali to sam pročitao detalje govora Emmanuela.

20:04 Ali mislim, traži li široke sankcije na temelju svih financijskih institucija ili sankcije za financijske institucije koje će posuditi raspolaganjima?

20:14 To je sve od njih.

20:16 Ili imati bilo kakav posao uopće u ilegalnom, mislim da je ono što biste onda vidjeli je izraelske banke rezanje. od financiranja i subvencija, do za naselja, što je, uh, što bi bilo značajno.

20:29 Da, da, da i da.

© MinbarLive · Privacy · Terms · support@minbarlive.com