 Israel's occupation of the West Bank, the deadly air strikes it rains on Gaza and the expulsion of Palestinians from their homes are not just the wrongdoings of one side in an equal conflict, they are rather the ongoing practices of settler colonialism. This is not a dispute, it's an occupation. So why do Western media outlets report on the aggressions of the Israeli government as if they are responses to provocations on the part of the people they occupy? There's a simple answer, it's the ideology of imperialism but it's increasingly being called out. This was the Palestinian ambassador speaking to news nights Emily Maitlis after 20 Palestinians including nine children were killed in Israeli air strikes on Monday in Gaza. The Israelis think that Hamas are a radical terror group and that Palestinian officials use these holy times to incite violence. Was Hamas right to respond with rocket fire? This isn't about Hamas. Hamas was not involved. There were tens of thousands. They were when they fired rockets. Hamas did not decide to evict people from their homes inside the occupied city of Jerusalem. East Jerusalem is occupied not according to my law only but according to your law, according to the UK position, according to the United Nations. An occupation has to be temporary and it has to respect the rules that govern occupation. Israel has made mockery of these rules particularly the issue of population transfers, ethnic cleansing, apartheid. I'm sure you have read the Human Rights Report. Those people have researched Israeli policies over the last two years. Ask the experts, not Netanyahu. Netanyahu is flaming. Of the settlements but let's just try and understand this because Dory Gold the former Israeli ambassador to the UN has told us it was pre-planned by Hamas. The march had nothing to do with it. You wanted to make Israel look bad. Do you condemn the rocket attacks by Hamas? I condemn and I condemn Israeli aggression. I mourn for the 20 people who were murdered in Gaza only tonight. Nine of them are children. I am so sad to see the hundreds of my people. I will do that in a moment. I am asking you about Hamas' aggression. I am not aware of any Israeli who has been killed and you asked me a question about violence and condemnation. Who should be condemned Emily? Who should be condemned? Did you see the images of the nine children being dissipated in Gaza tonight? Who should be condemned? And then the UK foreign secretary is quick to condemn Hamas and never to condemn the Israeli atrocities on a daily basis. We are sick and tired of the double standards and we have to call it right this time. Is it the Western government? You heard the statement from Dominic Raab today. He condemned the firing of rockets. What is your response to the UK government? Always the story begins when Palestinian reaction happens. As if it started with Hamas. Look at your question. Your question is about Hamas' rocket rocket. But that's because I'm talking to you. No Emily. No Emily. I have done many interviews. It starts with the Palestinian reaction with the symptom of the illness. It never visits the illness. The illness is that this state, Israel, the occupying state has been applying draconian measures against our people in every sense. Depriving them the right to move, the right to own their property, the right to work, the right to vote in a free elections including in East Jerusalem, every right you can imagine. And not only by the way inside the occupied territories, but even inside Israel itself. There is a kinesis load that has deprived our people inside Israel their basic rights of having self-determination. This whole system has been built endemic in it. Is the racism endemic in it is the vulgar ultra-nationalism. That's why you get people trying to defend their dignity. What he said there that really struck with me is this idea he said it's always the story begins with the Palestinian reaction, the symptom of the illness. So we say why are you asked why are you beginning this conversation with rockets from Gaza when that completely just ignores the context that's happening here, which is this is a place which has been under siege. These are people defending themselves. I want to get up a tweet from Omar Badar which I think, I mean just really summarized this really, really well. It made a lot of sense to me, made a lot of sense of what we're witnessing that right now to me. So he says, one, status quo, occupation apartheid is violence against Palestinians. Two, then Israel escalates through evictions, beatings, shootings, free. Then some Palestinians respond with violence. Then four, then Israel responds with massacres. If you start reporting at number three, you're misleading your audience. And clearly that's that's where that interview was started with that interview was starting with were Hamas justified in sending rockets. It's ignored the status quo, which is occupation and apartheid. And it's ignored the Israeli escalations, which preceded those rockets being fired, but still Western media always starts with the rockets. So that makes it seem like, oh, it's just these two sides. It's this cycle of violence. Ash, I want to get your thoughts on this, because I mean, as Emily Maitlis said there, she sort of suggested, look, I'm going to now give some tough questions to the Israeli ambassador. I actually watched the show. She ends up, I mean, she does ask some tough questions, but none of them go into the issue of apartheid or occupation. They're all about, oh, maybe you're not responsible enough with your power. Maybe you're too trigger happy. None of them were really looking at the disease, which is occupation and which is apartheid. How do you think the media get away with it? Why do they do it? Why do they frame this as an equal battle between two sides? In order to address this question, one of the things that you've got to do is look at the ideology, which is underpinning this entire discussion. Now, you correctly called it imperialism, but another word that you could give it is it is essentially a liberal outlook on international relations. So you can acknowledge that something is a conflict. You can even sometimes acknowledge that something is an asymmetric conflict where one side has got access to greater weaponry and technology than the other side. But what you cannot do and what you cannot get your own head around is the way in which even liberal states are complicit and active parts in ethnic cleansing and settler colonialism. Because that is the narrative in the historical frame, which makes all of this makes sense, which makes that number one day-to-day apartheid dispossession, number two escalation of aggression, number three response of violence, number four response of massacres. That is the frame, which makes all of those things make sense. And liberal media. And when I'm saying liberal, I'm not talking here in terms of social democratic or what do you think about wealth redistribution? I'm talking about, in some ways, that much looser ideological universe. Liberal media cannot make sense of this. It will not make sense of this because then you have to ask the question of why. What was Britain's involvement in this? What was America's involvement in this? And how much do we put into maintaining a system of slow and then sometimes accelerated ethnic cleansing, where the day-to-day status quo of that system is apartheid? We do not have a media which is capable of addressing those questions. And as such, the humanity of Palestinians, and when I say humanity, I'm not just talking simply in terms of personhood. I'm talking humanity, the culture, the human rights, the right to self-defense, to resistance and self-determination. All of these things get pulled through what is essentially a war on terror frame. So it presumes that these people, most of whom are Muslim, are essentially terrorist or terrorist adjacent. It delegitimizes acts of lawful resistance and lawful self-defense against and occupying and out of control military force. And presents these things as terrorist and racialized threats, which have got a particular salience within an ecology of images within a British and an American context. And so that's why you see there is this uphill battle when there are Palestinians making media interventions. Now, Palestinian ambassador Newsnight made a very forthright and a very compelling and a very convincing one. What's important, I think, is for all of us with what little comparative platform we have compared to Emily Maitlis on Newsnight, is to talk about that frame in which makes sense of what's going on and not fall into this delusion that what we're seeing is an equal-sided conflict in which both sides are equally to blame. And if everyone just sat down, have a cup of tea, it would all be solved. No. That was one example of a Palestinian really impressively calling out a host who was, I suppose, giving this misleading framing of what's currently going on in Palestine. Another one is or another clip that this one really went viral was from Mohamed El-Kurd, a journalist whose family are at threat of expulsion from their homes in Sheikh Jarrah. He is speaking to CNN. Do you support the protests, the violent protests that have erupted in solidarity with you and other families in your position right now? Do you support the violent dispossession of me and my family? I'm just asking if you support the protests that are taking place in support of your family? I support popular protests taking place against ethnic cleansing, yes. Thank you very much for joining us. I really appreciate you taking the time to speak to us. Mohamed El-Kurd, thank you very much. Thank you. That was such a powerful answer. Do you condemn the odd act of violence or, I mean, systematic violence? Who knows? Do you condemn resistance to apartheid? It's essentially what the question she's asking. It is a ridiculous question and it should be called out as a ridiculous question. If what's going on is settler colonialism and apartheid, then for us to just constantly moralize about the tactics used by the oppressed, it's a distraction, essentially. This bias that you've just seen from these hosts is also reflected in policy. I mean, absolutely reflected in policy, in fact. This was UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab's response on Monday night after 20 Palestinians, including nine children, had been killed by airstrikes in Gaza. Raab tweeted, the UK condemns the firing of rockets at Jerusalem and locations within Israel. The ongoing violence in Jerusalem and Gaza must stop. We need an immediate de-escalation on all sides and end to targeting of civilian population. That is just so duplicitous. The UK condemns the firing of rockets at Jerusalem and locations within Israel. That's the only thing he tweeted. There'd been 20 Palestinians killed at that point in time. There'd been no Israeli killed. He thinks that's a reasonable response. How more obvious could it be that you don't value Palestinian lives? Dealing with the Dominic Raab tweet first, there was a statement from an IDF spokesperson, which I think came out today, and what it said was there's one address in Gaza. It is called Hamas. So if you want to talk about targeting of civilian populations, the entire nature of what's going on in Gaza, the fact that it is essentially an open air prison where most of the water isn't even drinkable, where there's incredible levels of deprivation and unemployment, and that is what it is like during peacetime. It is made that way. It is allowed to be that way because the West maintains and shares in this delusion that the entirety of Gaza must be considered a legitimate terrorist target. Now, that is not something which is legal under international law. There are rules in terms of armed conflict, in terms of distinction and proportionality, and even during so-called peacetime, even during times where there is not the active bombardment of residential buildings, these rules of disproportionality and distinction are not respected. That's why it exists as an open air prison in the first place. So talking about the targeting of civilians, as if there is any equality between the firing of rockets, most of which are caught and destroyed by the Israeli iron dome system, and what goes on in Gaza on a day-to-day basis is at best delusional and at worst, actively complicit in racism, imperialism, and ethnic cleansing. And that's for the CNN clip. Again, another wonderfully strong intervention because it's a silly question. It's a fundamentally silly question because what you never hear and what you never hear put to spokespeople for the IDF or to the Israeli government is, well, what would you consider a proportionate response be to the ethnic cleansing of your people? Because then we can get away from this discourse, and it is a nonsense discourse which treats all acts of violence the same. Of course, in an ideal world, we think that all acts of violence should be considered with equal moral weight and equal political meaning, but we do not live in that world, and we do not live in that world because there is an uneven distribution of violence in the world. So in the face of your oppression, your dispossession, your bombardment and your arrest and your obliteration as a culture, what do you think is a reasonable means by which to express dissent and to resist that ongoing process? Now, that is, of course, an open political question where people draw the line is different, but it is in fact a political question and not simply a moral one, which means that you can look at what's going on not just in Gaza, but across the occupied territories and issue a blanket condemnation, which is in effect a blank check for the ongoing abuse of power and ethnic cleansing perpetrated by the Israeli state and settlers. I mean, we've just been talking about how it's how it's ridiculous to see all violence as the same because one side here is being occupied and one side is the occupier. In fact, though, most of the mainstream media and the big Western powers, they do the opposite. Basically, any violence by the occupier is legitimate and any violence by the occupied isn't. So it's completely through the looking glass. And the best example of this was from this week. It was a response of Joe Biden's spokesperson on the Middle East to the airstrikes and the rockets we're currently seeing. We're speaking of the principle of self-defense. I'm asking if you think that the principle of self-defense applies to the retaliatory airstrikes that they're conducting in response to. Matt, this is a very fluid situation. I would hesitate to comment on operations beyond the rocket fire that is clearly targeting innocent civilians in Israel. So I would hesitate to speak to specific operations that have just occurred. But the broader principle of self-defense is something we stand by on behalf of Israel and every other country. Yeah, but do you think that a Israeli military response to the rockets coming in, that a military response to the rockets coming in is covered by this broader rubric of self-defense, right? Self-defense often does authorize the use of force. Thank you, Matt. I want to ask about you, Jerusalem, but talk about what you said about the principle of self-defense. Does that in any way apply to the Palestinian? Do they have a right to self-defense? Do Palestinians have a right to self-defense? In broadly speaking, Said, we believe in the concept of self-defense, we believe it applies to any state. I certainly wouldn't want my words to be construed as... I understand. I want to ask you, I don't want to harp on this either, but the Israelis killed 13 people just now, including maybe five or six children. Do you condemn that? Do you condemn the killing of children? Said, I'm asking, do you condemn the killing of Palestinian children? Obviously, these reports are just emerging, and I understand, I was just speaking to the team, I understand we don't have independent confirmation of facts on the ground yet, so I'm very hesitant to get into reports that are just emerging. Obviously, the deaths of civilians, be they Israeli or Palestinians, are something we would take very seriously. You're going to know as soon as I read what your answer was that there's a big problem with it. You said, well, not a problem, it just doesn't answer the question. We believe that it, meaning the right to self-defense, applies to any state. Well, you see the problem, right? Yes? Do you want to... Do you regard Palestine as a state? I wasn't referring... Do you think you don't in the context of the ICC and the UN, so are you saying that you do not, if it applies to any state, are you saying that Palestinians don't have a right to self-defense? I was making a broader point, not attached to Israel or Palestinians in that case. So, they do have a right to self-defense? Man, I'm not in a position to debate the legalities from up here. Our message is one of de-escalation. That was just disgusting to watch, essentially. He's saying when Israel bombs Gaza, when Israel bombs Palestinians, that's self-defense. States have a right to self-defense. If they feel like they're at risk from rockets which are being fired, then they have a right to respond essentially however they want. If they bomb tower blocks, so be it. That's the right to self-defense. He's saying, but the Palestinians, you see, they don't have a state, so they don't have the right to self-defense. All they have is terrorism. And so you can see this way whereby he has basically automatically legitimized the violence of the oppressor and automatically delegitimized the violence of the oppressed. That's why I say it's through the looking glass. It is the precise opposite of what any moral compass should tell you in this situation. As Ash says, you can have legitimate debates about how oppression should be resisted. So there will be people that say, even if a people are colonized and oppressed, I'm not comfortable with them using violence. It's a fine position. But to say the oppressor can use violence, the oppressed cannot and to almost have these sort of rules, which means that's by definition the case, is just phenomenally disgusting, really. Ash, I want to bring you in on this because this isn't the Trump administration. This is the Biden administration. And we know that on certain issues, when it comes to fiscal policy, for example, they have been fairly progressive and Biden is seen to be a president who does listen to the left. But when it comes to foreign policy and policy on things like Palestine, I mean, it's hard to imagine a response that's more reactionary than that really, isn't it? I mean, look, when it comes to America thinking that the security interest of Israel are in line with American geopolitical interests, this is of course something which extends for a much longer jure than the appearance of Trump. And it is truly, I think, an issue of bipartisan agreement. This is sometimes quite crudely, I think understood as the power of the Israel lobby. But it's actually something which I think you can understand through the power of America in the region of the Middle East and seeing Israel as a vehicle for the advancement of American and more generally Western interests in the region. And so that's why I think you do not have a serious tilt leftwards from Joe Biden or his spokesperson, although you may see perhaps much less flagrant support for the expansion and the activities of Netanyahu and you might have a bit more considered or muted condemnation than you certainly would have had under Trump. But when it comes to the fundamentals about the recognition of a Palestinian state, the recognition of a Palestinian state and people's right to self determination, to resistance, to self defense, you are not going to see something which is all that different from what a Republican president or indeed what President Trump would say.