Terror apologist and pseudo-scholar Norman Finkelstein had a podcast Sunday where he discussed with his guest Mouin Rabbani, another sham scholar, the Hamas attack on Israel.
Rabbani refused to believe that any civilians were attacked; it was all probably Zionist propaganda:
Yes, there are reports which appear to be increasingly substantiated that there was a mass casualty event at a rave that was being held in the Negev Desert. Was that part of the planning does that help explain the timing of the operation? I really don't know. I would also say given -- as you would know better than anyone -- given the nature of Israeli and pro-Israeli propaganda that I would like to withhold confirmation and judgment until the facts are out.
By Sunday afternoon, there were numerous eyewitness reports in the media of Hamas targeting civilians - and this podcast was about that topic - and neither Finkelstein nor his "expert" guest had felt that any off that information was valid, and they assumed that Hamas would never attack civilians.
Rabbani doubled down:
I think first we need to define terrorism. I would argue that any armed action that is directed at a military target can in no way be characterized as terrorism. So, to the extent that what we saw yesterday was a military offensive against the Israeli military, it simply cannot be characterized as terrorism.
That tells you a little about how much self-deception the Israel haters have.
Rabbani then gave his audience another example of his "expertise:"
And a final point concerns settlers, because settlers are typically characterized as civilians but these are effectively armed auxiliaries of the Israeli military and there was a court case - I can't remember if it was in New York or something in the late 1970s - where the judge ruled that a family that was suing I think the P.L.O. because a settler who had some connection with the United States was killed, the judge ruled that settlers were, in his words, “willing participants in a civil war.”
I found the case he referred to - it was an attempt by Israel to extradite a terrorist from the US who attacked a bus in the West Bank, killing one passenger, in 1986. A lower court judge ruled that it was a political act and therefore protected. The ruling was overturned, partially because the original judge was wrong about defining all settlers as combatants:
Rabbani memorized the exact words because they fit his belief system, and conveniently forgot everything else about the case including the decade it happened inWhile Magistrate Caden adopted the broadest possible definition of what constitutes a political act, he made some effort to justify his determination here within the framework discussed above. Acknowledging that the settlers "do not fit the description of military personnel as it is commonly thought of," Magistrate's Opinion at 52, the Magistrate concluded that all settlers were subject to the kind of attack at issue here because "at a minimum they are willing participants in a civil war or violent community conflict designed to acquire a long sought after homeland." Id. This analysis, however, is contrary to the record.Whether there was a violent political uprising sufficient to trigger the application of the political offense exception to an attack directed against an Israeli military vehicle, which is assumed for present purposes, there was no "civil war or violent community conflict" raging on the West Bank in April of 1986 of sufficient magnitude to transform every Palestinian and Israeli living on the West Bank into a combatant "capable of fitting the definition of either civilian or soldier."
Then Finkelstein weighs in with his own ignorance and bias:
Norman FinkelsteinI would like to add one more point. I recognize the distinction between civilians and combatants. [Moulin: Yes, that's the key distinction.] However, I know I will seem to be contradicting myself, and that's because I think neither legal formulas nor sociological texts can, in all circumstances, capture the complexity of life. Most of the Hamas militants, probably the ones who broke through the fence, okay?Mouin RabbaniIt's probably their first time out of Gaza.NF:It's their first time out of Gaza because you assume they're mostly in their 20s. The blockade has gone on now for 18 years. They grew up in a concentration camp. They want to be free. One of the natures of the current technology is they get to see on the screen all these people walking free. They want to be free. They joined Hamas, they volunteered. Yes, by international law, they constitute combatants. Do I think they're legitimate targets because they're combatants? You'll never convince me. You will never convince me.I know what the law says. I know what I'm legally obliged to say. I know what as a scholar or reported scholar I'm supposed to say. But, are you going to convince me a person who grew up in a concentration camp and wants to breathe free air, is - to use the language of international law - a legitimate target, I can't do it. I cannot. Now, people are going to say, “you're a hypocrite, you say you uphold international law, you know the fundamental principle of international law is the principle of distinction. Now you're contradicting yourself.” Yeah, I'll admit it. I don't think legal formulas can capture every situation. And I don't believe a child who was born into a concentration camp is a legitimate target. If he, in this case, it is he, if he wants to be free. I can't see it.
Which means, according to Finkelstein, it doesn't matter what war crimes the Hamas terrorist does - killing civilians, rape, murdering babies, hostage taking - they cannot be attacked by Israel as military targets because they only want to be free.
That is just a small indication of the dishonesty and immorality of the anti-Israel crowd.
