 So, like Holocaust deniers, I do believe that Rabbi Mr. Shmuelin should have the right to speak. However, granting that right, he has a very tall order. If a Holocaust denier wants to deny the Nazi Holocaust, he or she has to refute a vast corpus of scholarship attesting to the reality of the Nazi Holocaust. In the same way, Rabbi Shmuelin, if he wants to deny that a plausible case for genocide can be made in Gaza, he has to refute a vast body of documentation. And that documentation ran as it was presented by the South African application. It ran to 84 single-space pages with literally hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of footnotes. Now, that's the first hurdle. Allow me to finish. For the ordinary mind, Norman Gary Finkelstein's slow and steady domination style during his intellectual engagements with opponents is intelligently superb. In almost all of his outings, he exploits the unnerving method of preemptive superior statements and facts to disarm even the most prepared of opponents, especially regarding the Israel-Palestinian predicaments. In this interview released by Piers Morgan yesterday, he once again demonstrated unwavering intellectual acumen, throwing both Piers and his guest off-balance with a combination of questions and deep brain-wracking analysis. Our commitment is to provide factual news and geopolitical analysis. Please share this content to stay informed and subscribe for updates on Palestine-related developments. In the following clip, he gently allowed Rabbi Shmueli to spill what he thought was the beans on the monstrous issues of Palestinian freedom fighters and attacks on occupied Palestine, now known as Israel. He was unequivocal with his submission, much like other commentators, any actions from whoever or whatever means and justifications that lead to the loss of innocent lives should be condemned and not tolerated by anyone, no matter who the person is. He maintained the intellectual equilibrium that the measure applied to Palestinian freedom fighters must also be encompassing, including deducing the actions of the occupation state in light of such treatment of the Palestinian offensive on October 7th. This was where he threw his opponents off-balance. They were unable to see the brutality of their own actions in the light of the similar moral compass used to judge the Palestinian military action, yet he had more intellectual missiles to unleash. Norman Finkelstein is the foremost Jew anti-Semite on planet Earth. He actually attacked his own parents, whose only crime was to be killed. Their entire family was annihilated in Warsaw. They're not victims, they hated Germans and wanted them. He didn't think to himself, maybe my parents wanted the Germans to suffer to stop the war, to break the will of the German people to stop murdering, gassing 10,000 Jews per day. His hatred of the people has extended even to his own family. He calls Israel a satanic state that comes from the boils of hell. He calls it a vandal state. He said that the 15 people in the Charlie Hebdo massacres, he has no sympathy for them whatsoever, but this is the most telling thing of all, and you discussed this the last time. He said, on October 7th, hours after the massacre of 1200 Jews started, he wrote, it warms every fiber of my soul to see the children of Gaza smiling as their arrogant Jewish supremacists have been humbled. The stars above in heaven are looking down. Glory, glory, hallelujah. Let's just go through this. Glory, hallelujah. Women shot in their gals norm. Glory, you should be a televangelist. Glory, hallelujah. Children. Glory, hallelujah. Come on, come on. You're a fear person, Pierce. This is exactly what your friend Douglas Murray said, because he refuses to debate Norman Finkelstein. He called him a sociopath. He said, Norman Finkelstein is a psychotic. He's not on your show because he's a serious academic. Wolfgang Benz, professor of Elengen, who was one of the four most German historians of the Holocaust, said the only thing interesting about Norman Finkelstein is that he needs a psychiatrist. Professor Wolfgang, wait, wait, wait, wait. Professor Wolfgang. I want to just ask you this though. You've spent, see, it's interesting. Norman Finkelstein gave a, I thought a pretty measured argument in response to my first question. You've gone ad hominem immediately and attacked the man, not the issue, and not the question that I asked you, which is to respond to what he was saying, which is a growing feeling around the world, by the way, that Israel is now committing, as he put it as a plausible site. I don't happen to think it is just what they're doing. But what I do think is happening is that there is a shameful number of innocent women and children being on a daily basis, and I don't see what the end game is, other than the obliteration of most of Gaza and many people living there. So to answer that point. So let me answer your question directly. First of all, when you quote President Lula of Brazil, he is a criminal who served in jail for corruption. He has zero credibility. He also knows nothing about history. 10,000 Jews were given a day for four years after the Bonzi conference in January 1942 to compare that to Gaza is an abomination. Secondly, Norman Finkelstein is a liar. The International Court of Justice specifically said that Israel is not committing a genocide. So when you tell me why do I go after an ad hominem, I'm questioning his academic credentials. He just lied on international TV. 20 minutes into the debate, it appears Rabbi Shmueli was only prepared to deal a decisive blow to any reputation remaining with Norman Finkelstein. You can see how he called him out for outright deception and even voiced aloud the official sentiment of the occupation government in Palestine. For him, the Palestinians were free to determine their future after the occupation forces withdrew from Gaza. Yet he failed to convince anyone except himself and the occupation government in Palestine that Gaza was a judge the world's largest concentration camp. It seems Rabbi Shmueli forgot quickly that Gaza was blockaded and not allowed to freely choose who would rule them in a democratic setting. The rabbi betrayed that Israeli superiority complex which appears to imply that Palestinians are not wise enough to identify what they need in Gaza. That the occupation governments owe the right to dictate to them how they can live their lives and the type of government they must bring to power. That superiority complex effectively made his argument putrid as it smells of pride and a genuine aura of apartheid. As expected, Finkelstein brought him to his senses as he made him understand that nobody has the right to tell the people of Gaza what is right for them. They unequivocally own that right. Every dimension that you examine the conflict by virtually any and every metric that you examine the conflict, Israel's assault on Gaza which we should bear in mind is among the most densely populated places on God's earth and it has been sealed off from humanity since 2006. As Ghiorah Island put it in March 2004, Ghiorah Island was the head of the Israeli National Security Council. He described Gaza and I'm quoting him now as a huge concentration camp. That's not me. That's Ghiorah Island. The former head of the Israeli National Security Council. So, if you put all of these metrics together and you put in and you add in the context, the context being a concentration camp in which half the people are children, 70% are refugees. If you add in the context and the metrics, there is a very good reason why Israel was brought before the International Court of Justice. Now, Mr. Shmueli has every right to question the authority of the numbers, the figures and so forth. I'm a strong believer in the right of Holocaust deniers to make a case before the public because as John Stuart Mill once put it, we are all fallible and being fallible. We have to always have a place in our minds open to the possibility that we are wrong. So, like Holocaust deniers, I do believe that Mr. Shmueli should have the right to speak. However, granting that right, he has a very tall order. If a Holocaust denier wants to deny the Nazi Holocaust, he or she has to refute a vast corpus of scholarship attesting to the reality of the Nazi Holocaust. In the same way, Rabbi Shmueli, if he wants to deny that a plausible case for genocide can be made in Gaza, he has to refute a vast body of documentation. And that documentation ran as it was presented by the South African application. It ran to 84 single space pages with literally hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of footnotes. Now, that's the first hurdle that wants to allow me. The challenges Piers Morgan and Rabbi Shmueli are having in this debate are the fact that the person they are teaming up against is a child of a Holocaust survivor. They are speaking with someone who knows the tactics of Israel ever since. With the support of the West, occupied Palestinian lands were systematically seized and a state created for some alleged migrants from the West. Since then, Palestine has not known peace. They are speaking with a man whose primary fields of research are the politics of the Holocaust and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Finkelstein gained attention in 2000 with his book The Holocaust Industry where he argues that some individuals misuse the memory of the Holocaust as a tool to shield Israel from criticism, dubbing it an ideological weapon. As a vocal critic of Israel, he faced denial of entry and a 10-year ban from the country starting in 2008. Finkelstein has characterized Israel as a ju- supremacist state and condemns its treatment of the Palestinian population as apartheid. Rabbi and Piers Morgan see him as someone they can challenge or oppose. Do you accept that her mass needs to be removed from power in Gaza? I would say that the pre-eminent question at the present moment ought to be do I accept the fact that the Israeli government ought to be removed from power? I can ask you that separately, but the specific question I have for you, particularly given what you said after October 7th, is simply should her mass remain in power? Should her mass remain in power, I think that the Palestinian people should be able to determine their own future and determine their leadership. That's just the basic democratic principle. I don't decide what people should do with their lives. Hang on, I can do an interview, thank you. The problem I have with that response is, you're very quick to level the charge of genocide at Israel and many people would agree with you, many wouldn't. But you're not so keen to be held to account for your view about a mass. And I don't see how anyone, after what they did on October 7th, could possibly conclude they should stay in power. Pierce, I don't want to have to re-do the interviews you did with me. I was very clear about my opinion when you asked about October 7th. I was also very clear as to what I believe Hamas should or shouldn't do regarding its leadership or its current power in Gaza. I've not tried to evade any of your questions. Okay, for those who may not have seen the previous interviews, for those who may not have seen our previous conversations, I simply ask again. That's fine. It is a simple question. Okay, that's fine. Should Hamas stay in power? Because Israel's whole argument is that they have to keep going with this warfare to eradicate Hamas. And my question for you is, do you think that in principle Hamas should stay in power? Well, Pierce, I'm going to answer you because I never fear the truth and I'm not going to try to evade your question. Let's take a simple metric. We'll take the question of children killed on October 7th. Answer the question. Should Hamas stay in power or not? These are answers to different questions. Just answer the question, Norm, for God's sake. You said you don't want to evade the truth. Should Hamas stay in power or not? Answer the question. Pierce, either you're going to moderate the program or there's honestly no point in continuing. I have to say, I do think it's a very simple question and it goes right to the heart. It goes right to the heart of Israel's argument about why they are continuing to execute the war. Pierce, how about letting me decide whether it's a simple question? How about letting me decide? Well, either Hamas stays in power or it doesn't. I don't think you have to be a professor to answer the question. Pierce, there's a difference between whether or not Hamas stays in power and whether Hamas should be in power. So let me get into the stays in power is a military question. Should be in power? Well, let's look at it. I say if Hamas, which is responsible for the killings of 36 children on October 7th, should not stay in power, then you must certainly agree, Pierce, and I'm going to kindly ask you to please answer me. You must surely agree then that Israel, which has killed now approximately 12,000 children is plausibly accused of having killed them in the course of a genocide. Now, I'm going to ask you, Pierce, to please answer the question. What is your source for 12,000 children? What's the source? What is your source, please? What's your source? What is the Palestinian House authority run by Hamas? We know that. Run by Hamas. Wait, wait, wait. No, no. Rabbi Schmooley, you don't interrupt. This is actually an important question and an important moment of the debate. Continue, Norman Finkleston. So I have to ask you, Pierce, if you believe that Hamas should not stay in power because it killed 36 children on October 7th, then you must surely agree several times, 1,000 times more emphatically that the Israeli government should not be in power because it killed 12,000 children, not as collateral damage, but plausibly, according to 15 of the 17 judges on the highest judicial body in the world. Okay, you said that point. Okay, here's my answer. Plausibly, plausibly. Here's my answer. In a genocide. Here's my answer. I haven't so far answered my question. If you do, I will give you an emphatic answer to yours. So let me just ask again, should Hamas stay in power? My answer is, if we apply one standard... No, no. That's not an answer. Across the board. No, that's not an answer. If we apply one standard across the board, I am perfectly happy to say Hamas should be removed from power if you agree that several thousand times more emphatically the Israeli government should be removed from power. I don't think... Well, I think there are two completely separate questions, and I would answer it like this. No, they're not. Well, I'm going to explain to you... No, they're not yours. I'm going to explain why I believe they are. They are. I will listen. Israel's response was a response to an appalling terror attack. I believed after October the 7th, Hamas rescinded any right to continue having any power over Gaza and should be removed. The only debate would then be how would that best be done? And I have serious question marks about Israel's response. In response to whether the current... Can I address them? Hang on, hang on. Let me finish my sentence, please. And in response to your question, Norma Finkelstein, about Israel's government, no, I do not believe they should continue, actually. I think this government has lost the faith of its people. I think Netanyahu, in particular, has lost all confidence and popularity with the Israeli people who blame him for what happened on October the 7th. And so, no, I don't think they should stay in power, actually. I think both countries should have new leadership and new governments. That's my answer. But again, I'm just coming back to you. Norma's saying... But hang on, hang on. I don't equivocate either with the other. You can divorce the two questions. You can say, after October the 7th, should Hamas stay in power, yes or no? And then you can have a question mark about whether this current Israel government should stay in power because of the way they're responding. They're two different questions. But you, Norma Finkelstein, so far... Wait a second, really. I just want to get one answer out of Norma Finkelstein as to whether you will answer my question about whether Hamas should stay in power. I just said, Piers, if you use a single standard across the board, then I accept your conclusion. So long as you're being morally as well as legally consistent, I have personally no problem with that conclusion. However, I would want to say, Piers, and I'm trying to be honest but also intellectually consistent in this matter. You said that Hamas disqualified itself from leadership because of the atrocity that was committed or atrocities that were committed October 7th. Now, if you agree with the head of the National Security Council of Israel at the time, in 2004, that Hamas is a huge concentration camp. I'm quoting him now. God's evening. Would you also agree that October 7th was a reaction to confining one million children in a concentration camp? In the final analysis, Finkelstein displayed a calmer disposition and spoke softly while hurling facts in the face of his opponents. In this debate, it seemed as if the host and the other guests, the rabbi, were out to defeat the scholar. They set some intellectual booby traps for him, but Finkelstein was as smart as he is aware of the lies the occupation uses to deceive the world and cover their alleged atrocities in Palestine. What Finkelstein established in this debate is that the measures for Palestinian defenders should also be used for the occupation army. And nobody should be canonized a saint in the face of the brutality going on in Palestine for the past 75 years. Thank you for watching. Please consider liking and sharing this news update with your family and friends. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest developments from Palestine. Until our next update, peace.