Norman Gary Finkelstein is an American political scientist, activist, professor, and author. His primary fields of research are the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and the politics of the Holocaust, an interest motivated by the experiences of his parents who were Jewish Holocaust survivors. He is a graduate of Binghamton University and received his Ph.D in Political Science from Princeton University. He has held faculty positions at Brooklyn College, Rutgers University, Hunter College, New York University, and, most recently, DePaul University, where he was an assistant professor from 2001 to 2007. In 2007, after a highly publicized row between Finkelstein and a notable opponent of his, Alan Dershowitz, Finkelstein's tenure bid at DePaul was denied. Finkelstein was placed on administrative leave for the 2007–2008 academic year, and on September 5, 2007, he announced his resignation after coming to a settlement with the university on generally undisclosed terms. An official statement from DePaul strongly defended the decision to deny Finkelstein tenure, stated that outside influence played no role in the decision.
• Dan Ariely (Dan Ariely is the James B. Duke Professor of Psychology and Behavioral Economics. He teaches at D...)
• Tim Wu (Tim Wu is the Isidor and Seville Sulzbacher Professor of Law at Columbia Law School. He is best k...)
• Bert Vaux (Bert Vaux teaches phonology and morphology at the University of Cambridge. Previously, he taught ...)» All Professor Interviews
I am Norman Finkelstein, student of the Israel-Palestinian conflict and critic of Israeli policy. I spent the last two days reading through the lengthy U.N. Human Rights Council report on Operation Protective Edge. Ask me about the report, last year's fighting, or anything else related to the conflict.
My most recent book, Method and Madness, focuses on Operation Cast Lead (2008-9), Operation Pillar of Defense (2012), and Operation Protective Edge (2014).
It was a pleasure speaking to everyone on Reddit a few months ago.
As progressive as Sanders is, isn't he just like every other US politician when it comes to Israel?
He knows what he's saying is wrong, so he does't aggressively press his opinions. He's sort of like de Blasio. I don't like what Sanders says, but it's not awful.
Are there any candidates running for U.S. president in 2016 who may be a less than horrible option in terms of the conflict?
So far, I am willing to support Bernie Sanders. Ellizabeth Warren lost me when she justified Israel's targeting of Gazan hospitals during Operation Protective Edge (OPE).
This report seems to be less critical of Israel than the Goldstone report - do you think this report will have more or less of a negative impact on Israel?
The Goldstone report used more evocative language, came to more definitive legal conclusions, and was more comprehensive in scope. Also, Goldstone himself was a prominent liberal Jew, which meant the report was relatively immune to the usual smears and dismissals. This report reaches rather tepid and conservative legal conclusions. It also, in my opinion, grossly understates what happened. Here are two examples: (1) The BREAKING THE SILENCE testimonies by Israeli combatants emphasized that the D-9 armored bulldozers operated non-stop day and night demolishing Palestinian homes, when there was no military threat. It was just the systematic razing of homes which had no military justification whatsoever. Amazingly, there isn't a single mention -- not one -- of the D-9 in the Report. Do a search on your own. Check home many times "D-9" appears in the Breaking the Silence testimonies versus the UN Report. Incidentally, these invaluable testimonies are barely cited in the Report, and the ones that are cited are the least revealing. At one point, the Report breezily dismisses them as "anecdotal." Yet, Israel's junk propaganda is constantly cited, as if it contained an ounce of credibility. (2) The Report never makes even one mention of the targeting of mosques, except to quote Israel as saying the mosques were legitimately targeted. 70 mosques were destroyed and another 130 damaged, yet it didn't pique the Report's curiosity. Imagine if Hamas had destroyed 70 Israeli synagogues. I don't particularly like the term Islamophobia. Let's just call it rank anti-Muslim bigotry.
What did you make of the evidentiary standards of the report? Was it a decent piece of research? How did the investigative team cope with not having access to the territory?
A huge gap existed between the descriptions compiled in the report and the concomitant legal analysis in each section. The descriptions were graphic and compelling, but the legal analysis seemed to minimize Israel's accountability. The reader senses that the person writing the legal analysis (probably Davis) was straining to be "fair," to the point that it became unserious.
I've seen you speak twice, both at universities in the United Kingdom and both times was inspiring. I was raised Jewish in a Jewish education for the first 18 years of my life and genuinely believed in Zionism and their struggle against Palestinian terrorists. It was you who educated me through your literature and talks, and further, allowed me to discover other social commentators such as Chomsky. For that, I thank you. I also loved the documentary made about you, which also allowed some more insight into both your work and the continuing struggle. Your comments in the documentary 'Deformation' were also interesting.
My question is this: Over the years your credibility and professionalism has been questioned and criticise. Your tenure was not renewed and your teaching positions precarious. Why do you feel this is, when other outspoken critics of Israel (such as Chomsky) thrive? How does it make you feel? Do you ever think "It's not worth it, I'll just play the game?"
Thank you so much.
Professor Chomsky is a certified genius. U.S. universities are sufficiently flexible that none would pass up the opportunity to have him on their faculty. I, on the other hand, am competent, but not much more. Faced with the all the burdens of having me on the faculty (the awful publicity, the relentless attacks), university administrators make the prudent on-balance decision that I am not worth the trouble.
Will we see end to this conflict?
If justice is to be achieved, it can only come from mass mobilization from below, both in Palestine and abroad. Those who put their faith in the ICC or the UN are living in a dream world.
What do you make of Israel's claim that it is entitled (by law) to target civilian homes (even with whole families inside) if they are the homes of Hamas members? Surely killing a whole family at night isn't a legitimate target even if one of the members is a combatant. Does the law say anything definite here?
The Report found that, in the 15 cases of Israel's air attacks on civilian residences, overwhelmingly Israel gave no warnings. But I still think this is the wrong emphasis. A few thousand homes were destroyed in air attacks or during battle. All told, 18,000 Palestinian homes were destroyed or made uninhabitable. It's clear from the Breaking the Silence testimonies that this unfolded not on the battlefield, not in the heat of battle, not by aerial attacks, but just in the course of occupying Gaza's border area.
Hi Prof. Finkelstein, thanks very much for your time. Reading your works I know HRW has produced some dubious reports on the question of Israeli war crimes for some years now. After AI's strong denunciation of Hamas rocket fire earlier this year, and this rather understated report, do you feel the human rights community has become (or is becoming) fundamentally compromised in their work on Israel-Palestine? I ask because along with the international consensus for peace and the great shift in public opinion, I always considered the principled work of mainstream human rights organizations to be a major weapon in our armoury of exposing Israeli brutality and thereby undermining Israeli propaganda, the better to move Israel-Palestine equitably to the consensus two-state solution.
Amnesty International's reports on Gaza were a disgrace, a shocking betrayal of its calling and mandate. I have written a 20,000 word analysis of the Amnesty reports, which I will be posting beginning July 08, to coincide with the first anniversary of the start of OPE. It will appear in serialized form on the on-line publication BYLINE.
What do you make of the recent french initiative do introduce a UN security council resolution recognizing palestine as a state? Can a US veto be avoided? If not, why invest the political capital? And if yes, what would it add to resolution 242 which already calls for israeli withdrawal and has been unheeded for almost 50 years? Thank you.
So far as one can tell, the text of the French resolution will water down Palestinian rights under international law. There's already a decent text. It's the annual UN General Assembly resolution, PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT OF THE PALESTINE QUESTION. That's the only acceptable text, in my opinion.
There have been some rumblings about the U.S. maybe not blocking action against Israel at the UN. Do you think there is any chance of this actually happening, given the track record of the last 40 years?
It's possible that the uS will abstain if a French resolution comes before the Security Council. But, if would probably be better if the US does veto the resolution, because the resolution's text will probably further water down Palestinian rights.
Does Israel have a policy that basically says the family of their enemy is their enemy? There's a term for it but I forgot what it's called. Do you think Israel was targeting Civilians during the conflict?
There are clearly many instances where Israel targeted civilians (the Report acknowledges this), but mostly it was a terror campaign designed to break the spirits and resistance of Palestinians by inflicting the maximum amount of death and destruction. Another element is, Israel demands the right to fight cost-free hi-tech wars. So, it destroys everything in sight and kills everything in sight to avoid any casualties on its side.
How balanced was the report?
Let's look at the raw data. 2300 Palestinians were killed, of whom 1,500 were civilians. 73 Israelis were killed, of whom 6 were civilians (one a guest worker from Thailand). 550 Palestinian children were killed, 1 Israeli child was killed. 18,000 Gazan homes were destroyed, one Israeli home was destroyed. Israel used 20,000 tons of explosives, Hamas used 20-40 tons of explosive. You get the picture. Yet, in the report, in the last section titled "IMPACT," 60 percent is devoted to what Gaza endured, 40 percent to what Israel endured. You decided whether the proportions mach the reality.
hello dr. finkelstein, thanks for taking the time. I have a few questions and statements: I haven't read the report or even really listened to too much of the commentary about it, but I wonder: can you provide a "summary" of what you think are the some of most important / interesting facets of the report as well highlight what you think are some "must read" sections of the report?
I think that I heard somewhere that both hamas and the israeli government were found, by this report, to have committed "war crimes." I put that in quotes because I suspect that there will be a bit more adjudication that will need to occur, other than this report to make a determination of "war crimes," to stick, but I wonder if you would care to comment on this, and in particular if you think that this finding, if it true, serves to provide some sense of "balance."?
if a determination is ultimately made that israel had committed "war crimes," do you think that there would be any substantive change in the United State's foreign policy regarding israel (ie, laws which restrict the US for funding states that have committed war crimes; see US Senate's 2014 S.498)?
what do you think the long term implications of the report will be, in the light of any other historical reports and findings from the UN?
finally, have you substantially spent any time reading and thinking about responses and remarks regarding news and commentary on Israel and its wars on reddit ? What do you think about its tone, generally, as any form of measure of sentiment, or anything else ?
again, thank you if you have time to answer any of these questions.
The Report is very cautious in the language it uses regarding Israeli war crimes. Nonetheless, virtually every section of the Report raises the possibility that Israel committed war crimes. If you open up the report, and do a search under "war crimes," you will probably get at least 20 hits in the Israeli section of the report. In my opinion, Hamas should welcome the opportunity to go before the ICC and make its case. If it recruits talented, principled lawyers such as John Dugard and Alfred de Zayas, I think they could put forth a credible defense, at any rate, in the court of public opinion, which is the only court of importance. The US will of course side with Israel, not because of the Israel lobby, but because whatever Israel did in Gaza, the US routinely does around the world on an infinitely greater scale.
Was there an investigation on the killing of the four children on the beach of Gaza which Israel exonerated itself from?
Yes, and -- surprise, surprise - Israel found that it was legitimate. To the Report's credit, it clearly didn't find the Israeli "findings" credible.
Hello Mr. Finkelstein. You have recently made some comments here and there where you compared Abe Foxman to The Blob. I'll have you know this is serious defamation. I think you should issue an immediate apology to The Blob for such inconsiderate comments.
On a serious note, here's a question: What do you think would reignite the non-violent resistance spirit in the Palestinians? It seems Intifadas are but a thing of the past now...
On your sage advice, I hereby submit my humblest apologies to...the Blob.
I cannot say what will reignited the fighting spirit of the Palestinians. But until and unless they engage in mass nonviolent resistance, such as during the first intifada, it's hopeless.
Hi Norman, do you believe that the new report could lead to prosecutions of Israeli officials, or will it change nothing in the real world just like the Goldstone report, and soon will be forgotten?
In order to reach that point, the Palestinians must pass through a thousand procedural hoops. It requires a huge amount of conviction, commitment and conscientiousness to succeed. The Palestinian Authority is unable and unwilling to put in such an effort. It is hopelessly corrupt and compromised. If and when the moment of truth comes, they will do what their American paymasters tell them to do.
In your opinion, does Hamas have a responsibility in perpetuating the conflict? Do you think the situation would be different if Gaza was ruled by a party that focused on improving the people's lives rather than arming themselves to the teeth? Do you genuinely believe that if Israel lifted the blockade on Gaza, Hamas would just drop it's weapons and live in peace rather than use the opportunity to arm themselves further and cause more violence?
Hamas won parliamentary elections in January 2006. If Hamas is the big obstacle to resolving the conflict, why didn't Israel end the occupation in the FOUR DECADES before Hamas came to power? If the people of Gaza do not object to Hamas arming itself, or using a tiny fraction of its resources to make these enhanced fireworks called rockets, then I don't object. For the thousandth time, under international law, peoples struggling for self-determination have the right to use armed force to end an illegal, immoral and inhuman blockade and occupation.
Does the report condemn indiscriminate 'rocket' attacks, if so in order to mitigate this shouldn't Hamas be supplied with the latest high tech laser guided weapons?
It's an interesting question. At one point, a Hamas representative said that Hamas would have targeted more precisely if it had more precise weapons. The Report curtly responded, without any attempt at elaboration, that the point was "not relevant." Easy enough to say, if you don't live under a brutal occupation, and are then told any attempt at resistance constitutes a war crime. The Report is quite wretched in this regard. It also says that, although Hamas militants infiltrating Israel ONLY TARGETED COMBATANTS (the Report explicitly acknowledges this), the tunnels are also reckoned unacceptable because they cause "fear" and "anxiety" among Israelis. Israeli rockets and missiles also cause "fear" and "anxiety." Shouldn't Israel then be told to disarm? In addition, the Report also prohibits Palestinians from using NONVIOLENT CIVIL RESISTANCE by going to rooftops to deter Israeli pilots from pulverizing their homes. (See para 483 of the Report). So, although the Report acknowledges that Israel occupies Gaza,and although it acknowledges that the Israeli blockade is "strangling" Gaza's economy, and although Israel's illegal occupation has now endured for nearly a half century, the Report declares illegal both armed resistance (which international law does NOT prohibit if a people is struggling for self-determination) as well as nonviolent civil resistance.
This is off-topic (sorry-ish):
In a recent interview, when asked about The Holocaust Industry, you argued that the two european peoples most critical of Israel were the French and the Germans. It appears to me you can not have included the media of those countries in this statement? Specifically: Isn't the german press, isn't the german political class, whether it considers itself right-wing, but especially when it considers itself left-wing, extraordinarily extreme in that regard?
I read all but one of your books and watched all your "youtubes" too. I was with the Antideutsche Kommunisten (israel solidary antifa) when I was younger. Beyond Chutzpah and A Nation on Trial were sucker punches that made me seriously reconsider this nonsense. Thank you!
The German political class and mainstream media are politically correct on Israel to the point of embarrassment. But it seems, their actual influence on the public is very limited. I rarely comment on France. It belongs to the same category of states as Saudi Arabia: the Saudi totalitarians force women to cover themselves, the French totalitarians force women to uncover themselves. The world would be a better place if both countries fall off the planet.
You are wrong in your definition of war. War is never the goal. War is but a means to a political end. Violence is regulated by politics.
The purpose of the rule of law is supposed to be to replace MiGHT by RIGHT. But, if international humanitarian law dictates that only rich and powerful, countries, which can afford precision weapons, can use armed force, while poor peoples living under a brutal occupation de facto have no right of armed resistance, I don't see how the rule of law is an improvement over the rule of might. Bear in mind, however, that the Report also denied to Gazans the right of NON-VIOLENT resistance. Look at para 483.
How do you respond to the criticism of your criticism that you use your family deaths in the Holocaust to your advantage, much like you critique people like Dershowitz for doing?
I wrote two books on the Nazi holocaust, one in 1998 and the other in 2000. Otherwise I have focused on the Israel-Palestine conflict. I don't think it can fairly be said that the claims I make lack for documentation.
Hi Professor Finkelstein,
You stated in the past that you are against The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement (BDS Movement), because you felt it was counter-productive. Why did boycotting South Africa succeed in ending apartheid, but boycotting Israel would fail?
I have always supported boycotts, divestment and sanctions. The real issue is: towards what end or goal? i don't believe it is possible to reach a broad public without recognizing Israel's legal existence within its internationally recognized borders. BDS leaders think otherwise.
I know you're a proponent of the two-state solution, but what kind of way do you think it could be achieved? My own personal thought is that Israel should withdraw from the territories, Egypt should reoccupy Gaza, and Jordan should reoccupy the West Bank. Then, the actual business of building a Palestinian state could begin and Israel couldn't say boo because Egypt and Jordan hate Islamists as much as Israel does.
I am not a proponent of a two-state solution. I am a communist (lower-case "c"). I oppose all states. But I don't believe anything beyond two states is achievable in the current and foreseeable balance of force in the world. Your proposal has no basis in reality (like my world without states) so it's pointless to argue.
With this report being released (and the corresponding reactions from Palestinians), is the two-state solution still a practical goal these days?
If so, what steps do you reckon the Israeli government should take regarding cooperation with nearby states to help prop up Palestine and to help mitigate anti-Israel sentiment?
If not, for what reasons would other alternatives (e.g. one-state, three-state solutions) appear more attractive in light of this report especially?
The Report says that the blockade of Gaza must UNCONDITIONALLY end. I agree on this point. The most important thing Israel should do is, stop carrying on like a Vandal state. That place has clearly gone over the cliff. Only mass international pressure can drag it back to sanity.
You are very open and outspoken on your criticism of Israel. Do you have any words for the current Palestinian governing bodies in Gaza and the West Bank?
I have said many times that in my opinion the Palestinian Authority is incapable of achieving Palestinian rights because it is in thrall to the US. I also do not believe that Hamas's strategy of "armed resistance" can achieve its avowed goals.
Do Israel's claims of UNHRC bias due to overt attention given to it's crimes as opposed to the crimes of it's neighbours have any validly?
Israel has occupied the Palestinian territories for 48 years. It if had ended the occupation, as it should have done, decades ago, it wouldn't be in this fix. One reason UN bodies focus on Israel is, Israel routinely flouts its recommendations.
What is the biggest takeaway from the report you would want people to know who have no intention of sitting down and reading it / have the intention to sit down and read it but obviously never will?
Although the report contains many graphic and compelling descriptions of Israeli atrocities, it grossly understates what happened. I would recommend that you read the Breaking the Silence testimonies instead. The Report keeps repeating Israeli propaganda, usually with sentences that begin, "The Commission notes that Israel said,..." as if this is to be taken seriously. Here's one example. Israel fired 20,000 high-explosive artillery shells into Gaza. Israel alleges -and the Report quotes it-- with with a "few exceptions," these shells were fired in open areas. First, that's a documented lie. A study cited by the Commission itself said that, in its investigation, 95% of the artillery shells were fired in or near populated areas. The Report does NOT quote this finding of the study. Second, Israel alleges that Hamas abandoned all open areas at the start of OPE and congregated in populated areas. So, to believe Israel, it fired 20,000 high-explosive artillery shells in empty spaces. Why does the Report give credence to such nonsense? A second example. The Report claims that EVERY rocket fired by Hamas was intercepted by Iron Dome. It's source? An official Israeli publication. It's just laughable
Thanks for your response. But what if someone other then the PA takes the initiative, like in the recent Mofaz incident?
Only State parties can pursue such a case.
Dr. Finkelstein, I hope you still have time to answer more questions? I am interested in your views on the conclusions of the UN commission report regarding “human shielding”. Leaving aside para. 483, which you’ve already commented on, and also leaving aside the Israeli use of human shields (as attested in Paras. 321, 323, 343, 345, 346) what is your take on paras. 466 to 482, i.e. the sections on “Impact on the population in Gaza of the conduct of Palestinian armed groups”, “Conducting military operations from within or near densely populated areas”, “Measures to facilitate the removal of the civilian population from the vicinity of military objectives”, when looked at in comparison to the Goldstone report, which weighed with emphasis “intent” and “force” (ie. forcing civilians to act as shields wittingly or unwitttingly) in its definition of human shielding? (As did Amnesty back then.)
The Amnesty report also said that "human shielding" as normally understood has a manifestly coercive element. The Report does say at one point in these sections that, to prove human shielding, you'd have to show "intent" by the militants to use civilian protected cites as a shield. Obviously, the Report never came close to proving intent. The most it showed was some prima facie evidence that Hamas did not take all feasible precautions to protect the civilian population, and even here the evidence was thin.
Do you think a no-state solution could ever be possible? What do you think it would look like?
In the current balance of power in the world, no state is just not a realistic option.
Why do people claim Israel targets civilians?
Are they unaware of how densely packed the cities in Gaza are or is it just bias?
If you read the Breaking the Silence testimonies by Israeli combatants, you'll see that soldier after soldier said that the formal and informal rules of engagement during OPE was, "shoot everything that moves."
You surely cannot be supporting the idea of arming Gazans.
With precision weapons, of course.
Then let's support the idea of disarming Israelis.
If Gazans can't dig tunnels underground, even if they target Israeli targets (which is what the Report says), because they cause "anxiety" for Israelis, then Israel shouldn't be allowed to fire missiles or send in planes to drop bombs above ground. If there's an error in my logic, I would want to know it.
Mr. Finkelstein, do you think there is any chance for "clean slate" peace talks between Israel and Palestine? What would it take for both states to put the past behind them and engage in negotiations geared towards compromise, peace, and coexistence?
"Talks" are a waste of time. I would think that the past 48 years of talks have proven this beyond reasonable doubt. The peace process is just a fig leaf behind which Israel incrementally completes the task of erasing Palestine from the map. If Black people just "talked" with white power-holders in the American South or waited for the Federal government to implement Brown vs. Board of Education, the South would still be legally segregated today.
Don't even start to compare the casualties. We all know why so little Israelis were killed and that is because of the Iron Dome and the "effectiveness"(Quotes because I don't agree with some of their actions) of the IDF. If Israel didn't have an Iron Dome, THOUSANDS of Israeli citizens would have been killed. Be realistic here.
To quote my eldest brother, Iron Dome was really Iron Dud. According to one of the world's leading experts on anti-missile defense, Theodore Postol of MIT, its effectiveness was about 5%, which would mean it successfully intercepted about 35 Hamas "rockets." Incidentally, 2,600 of the 4,000 Hamas rockets (60 percent) landed in the border area, where there was no Iron Dome. There were so few Israeli civilian casualties, first, because of the civil warning/defense system, but, second, and much more important, because Hamas rockets were little more than enhanced fireworks. If I am mistaken please explain how thousands and thousands of Hamas rockets and mortar shells resulted in destruction of exactly ONE Israeli house.
What is your opinion on Hasbara? Do you think it is justified and why do you think so many supporters of the zionist state are complacent in being used to spread propaganda this way? Big fan of your work by the way, always enjoy hearing you talk.
The African revolutionary Amilcar Cabral exhorted his followers, "Tell no lies, Claim no easy victories." That's also my credo.
When I was a revolutionary Marxist in my youth, I used to like to quote Lenin and Gramsci, both of whom said, "The truth is revolutionary." Hasbara is just a euphemism for lies.
It's baffling that you are supporting the idea to cause more destruction. You are surely not an expert on this conflict.
International law does not bar people struggling for self-determination to use armed force. Your quarrel is not with me, it's with the law.
> But, if international humanitarian law dictates that only rich and powerful, countries, which can afford precision weapons, can use armed force, while poor peoples living under a brutal occupation de facto have no right of armed resistance, I don't see how the rule of law is an improvement over the rule of might.
I think that's twisting things around a bit. "War is a crime", in the first place. War is what comes after the attempt to use rights, morals, and laws has already broken down. In its own context, yes, wars are to be resolved via might precisely because they are unfair, and therefore we want them to end quickly.
Thus my question: how can we say that the law privileges poor peoples with an uneven military playing field? That would imply that the goal of military law is not to contain the violence but to keep it going until the right side wins!
I do not understand your point. Please restate it.
What is the official stance of Hamas about the right of Israel to exists ?
It has made many statements to the effect that it is willing to accept two states on the 1967 border and a resolution of the refugee question. If you don't trust what they say, then just test them by entering in negotiations. It is incidentally a no-brainer, What is the official stance of Israel about the right of Palestine to exist? Mr Netanyahu made his answer clear during his last election campaign.
I'm not him but have the same opinion.
Palestine has lost the war. This country is in an even worse state than Japan after the USA nuked them twice in WW2 or Germany when the Allied met in Berlin in '44. Yet they don't surrender and keep fighting.
Because they are far weaker (military wise) than Israel, they have resort to act that are considered terrorism. However you seems to claim that such acts are acceptable because Palestinian don't have the mean to fight an other way.
To which he answered you : Why is it suddenly acceptable to commit acts that could be considered war crime under normal circumstances if you have no other mean to fight ?
This is at least how I understood it.
The problem is, your expression, "considered terrorism." The use of indiscriminate weapons is considered "terrorism" because powerful countries want a de facto monopoly on the use of violent force. They possess the wealth and technical knowledge to manufacture precision weapons That's why the international community banned dum-dum bullets in 1899, and banned biological and chemical weapons, but hasn't banned the most horrifying weapon of mass destruction, nuclear weapons. Chemical and biological weapons are the poor man's WMD, so they were outlawed.
Ron Paul said that Israel created Hamas. Maybe those rockets weren't meant to hit any Israeli houses. What are the chances that some of the Hamas leadership is under the control of the Israeli government?
Unlikely. Israel prefers to work through the Palestinian Authority.
You realize Bernie Sanders is rabidly pro Israel and once yelled at a crowd who questioned him about his policies on Israel? (I'm on mobile but YouTube it)
The guy lived in an Israeli kibbutz for God's sake.
Chomsky also lived on a kibbutz.
What makes you an expert other than that you have an opinion?
As compared to other so-called experts, I make a point of only commenting on a report after reading it, usually twice. I read the new UN Report in full once and am currently rereading it.
How can you not support the IDF attacking Gazan hospitals when Hamas is PROVEN to be using them to launch mortars and missiles into Israel?
I am not aware of any evidence that Hamas used hospitals so launch mortars and missiles. One Hamas projectile was launched from behind al-Shifa hospital, but not from al-Shifra's grounds or the building itself. The only evidence that a Hamas projectile was fired from al-Wafa hospital was shown to be false, and in the last official Israeli report, 2014 Gaza Conflict, released last week, they dropped the claim that a rocket was fired from al-Wafa.
What are you thoughts on the Luciferian plan for WWIII which include the total destruction of Israel?
"The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the "agentur" of the "Illuminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion…"
A man, a plan, a canal Panama.
Read it forward and backward, the letters are in the same sequence.
I find this more interesting than your Luciferian plan.