Speaker 1: From the Australian. Here's what's on the front. I'm Claire Harvey.
Speaker 1: It's Wednesday, May twenty two. Brittany Higgins and her former boss,
Speaker 1: Senator Linda Reynolds are headed for court. Reynolds is suing
Speaker 1: Higgins and her fiance David Schiraz for defamation over social
Speaker 1: media posts. Mediation talks between the two parties broke down
Speaker 1: on Tuesday, meaning the trial will go ahead in July.
Speaker 2: It's time for them to admit they got it wrong.
Speaker 1: Almost a million Australians are relying on welfare and it's
Speaker 1: mostly younger people who need the help. New research shows
Speaker 1: a third of small businesses struggle to cover costs and bills.
Speaker 1: That story is live right now at the Australian dot
Speaker 1: com dot au. Completely unjustified. That's the assessment by The
Speaker 1: Australians Foreign editor Greg Sheridan of a decision by the
Speaker 1: International Criminal Court to seek arrest warrants for leaders of
Speaker 1: both Israel and Hamas. That's today's episode. Did you know
Speaker 1: Vladimir Putin is a wanted man? In March twenty twenty three,
Speaker 1: a panel of judges issued an arrest warrant for two
Speaker 1: Russian individuals, Vladimir Vladimirvich Putin and Russia's Commissioner for Children's
Speaker 1: Rights Maria Alexeyevna Levova Belova. They're accused of forcibly deporting
Speaker 1: tens of thousands of Ukrainian children to Russia and having
Speaker 1: them adopted by Russian families in what Ukraine says is
Speaker 1: a giant brainwashing exercise.
Speaker 3: And moved to camps in Russia or Belarus, says the
Speaker 3: start of the war. Officially, the Ukrainian government has documented
Speaker 3: more than nineteen thousand children taken by Russia, but told
Speaker 3: us they worry the actual number could be closer to
Speaker 3: three hundred thousand.
Speaker 1: These warrants were issued in March twenty twenty three by
Speaker 1: something called the International Criminal Court. That's a division of
Speaker 1: the United Nations. It doesn't have a police force or
Speaker 1: any prisons, but it has one hundred and twenty four countries,
Speaker 1: including Australia, who've signed up to respect its rulings, and
Speaker 1: that means potentially arresting any fugitives and sending them off
Speaker 1: to the ICC to be prosecuted. The warrants were greeted
Speaker 1: by the Kremlin as a bit of a joke, but
Speaker 1: an offensive joke. A spokesman for Putin said the warrants
Speaker 1: were outrageous and unacceptable, but would be meaningless as Russia
Speaker 1: didn't recognize the ICC's jurisdiction. Vladimir Putin has carried on
Speaker 1: the war in Ukraine and the brutal repression of dissent
Speaker 1: in Russia with apparent unconcern, and now the ICC is
Speaker 1: back in the news announcing that one of its prosecutors
Speaker 1: is seeking warrants for the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister
Speaker 1: Benjamin Netanyahu and senior figures in Hamas, the organization that
Speaker 1: rules the Gaza Strip.
Speaker 4: Prosecuting Hamas is just, in my view, a pathetic effort
Speaker 4: to demonstrate a completely fraudulent even handedness.
Speaker 1: Greg Sheridan is The Australian's foreign editor, as you can hear,
Speaker 1: is pretty fired up about this, the fact that the
Speaker 1: ICC is announcing proceedings against Hamas a terror group and
Speaker 1: Israel a democracy at the same time.
Speaker 4: They're saying, yes, of course, we're fanning the flames of
Speaker 4: global anti Semitism and were insanely prosecuting the democratically elected
Speaker 4: leader of a parliamentary democracy with a full judicial system.
Speaker 4: But you can't accuse us of bias because we're also bravely,
Speaker 4: at this very same time issuing a prosecution and an
Speaker 4: arrest warrant for the leader of the most thirsty, sadistic,
Speaker 4: sexually depraved terrorist group that exists on the face of
Speaker 4: the planet at the moment. Even issuing these prosecutions simultaneously
Speaker 4: is just grotesque political symbolism. It has nothing at all
Speaker 4: to do with law, nothing at all to do with prosecution,
Speaker 4: and honestly, the idea that any of these Hummas leaders
Speaker 4: is going to end up being a subject to a
Speaker 4: trial in the Hague by the International Criminal Court is
Speaker 4: just preposterous nonsense. Nor are the Israeli leaders either. This
Speaker 4: is just political symbolism in a war by the United
Speaker 4: Nations bureaucracy against Israel. It's a day of infamy for
Speaker 4: the International Criminal Court. As Joe Biden said, let me
Speaker 4: be clear, we reject the ICC's application for resta warrants
Speaker 4: against as well as an whatever these warriors may imply.
Speaker 4: There's no equivalence between Israel and Hamas. And it's a
Speaker 4: sad thing that our own Prime Minister won't take the
Speaker 4: same position as Joe Biden or Richard Sumac or so
Speaker 4: many of our other allies. Well, I don't comment on
Speaker 4: court processes in Australia, let alone court processes globally, of
Speaker 4: which Australia is not a party.
Speaker 1: On Tuesday, Opposition leader Peter Dutton offered his appraisal of
Speaker 1: Albanese's comments.
Speaker 5: Now, I don't know why the Prime minist is not
Speaker 5: showing leadership at the moment on the economy, he's not
Speaker 5: showing leadership in relation to anti Semitism, and he's tarnishing
Speaker 5: and damaging our international relationships it with like minded nations.
Speaker 5: When he's not strong enough to stand up alongside President.
Speaker 1: Biden, Nisanyahu and his foreign minister, you are gallant are
Speaker 1: accused by the ICC prosecutor of war crimes, including deliberately
Speaker 1: starving the population of Gaza, and the Hamas officials, including
Speaker 1: the fugitive leaders Yaya Sinoa and Muhammadif, are accused of
Speaker 1: masterminding the slaughter, rape, kidnapping, and torture of civilians in
Speaker 1: Israel in Hamas's October seven attack.
Speaker 4: The International Criminal Court is meant to prosecute individuals for
Speaker 4: war crimes or crimes against humanity. Its jurisdiction only applies
Speaker 4: to the one hundred and twenty four countries who signed
Speaker 4: up to the so called Rome Statute. It is also
Speaker 4: supposed to only prosecute someone when there is no credible
Speaker 4: national legal process and when whatever national legal process there
Speaker 4: is is exhausted. I think it is a body which
Speaker 4: has very limited credibility and has not been very effective.
Speaker 1: Here's icc prosecutor, Kareem Khan.
Speaker 2: I have reasonable grounds to believe that three senior leaders
Speaker 2: of Hamas, Yaya Sinwah Muhamma Daif and Ishmael Haniah bad
Speaker 2: criminal responsibility for the following international crimes committed on the
Speaker 2: territory of Israel and the State of Palestine from at
Speaker 2: least the seventh of October twenty twenty three. Extermination as
Speaker 2: a crime against humanity, murder as a crime against humanity,
Speaker 2: and as a war crime.
Speaker 4: So there's no doubt that Hamas is guilty of shocking
Speaker 4: war crimes or shocking crimes against humanity. I'm in the
Speaker 4: rape and mutilation and murder of the innocent civilians on
Speaker 4: October seven. Now it claims that Israel has used starvation
Speaker 4: as a weapon of war. Well, that seems to be
Speaker 4: patently ridiculous. It's against the facts. Now, you can certainly
Speaker 4: be critical of Israel, say that you know there are
Speaker 4: things that could have done better, but it has certainly
Speaker 4: made an effort not to kill civilians in waging a
Speaker 4: war against an enemy which attacked it and broke a
Speaker 4: cease fire to do so, and which hides among civilians.
Speaker 1: What Greg's talking about is the vast tunnel network under
Speaker 1: densely populated areas of Gaza like Dir el Bala. It's
Speaker 1: believed Ya Yasinwa and Muhammadif are currently sheltering in those tunnels.
Speaker 1: Israel admits its military goals to eliminate himasas senior leaders
Speaker 1: and destroy the tunnel network have resulted in devastating civilian casualties.
Speaker 1: Hamas puts the body count at well over thirty thousand,
Speaker 1: but that doesn't make clear how many are civilians and
Speaker 1: how many militants.
Speaker 4: Why have they chosen Benjamin net Nyahu and yoe'v Golant
Speaker 4: because the ICC, like most of the UN system, suffers
Speaker 4: a very serious, twisted, unhealthy obsession with Israel and hatred
Speaker 4: of Israel. You know, every year the United Nations General
Speaker 4: Assembly passes more resolutions against Israel than it does against
Speaker 4: all the other countries of the world combined. So you know,
Speaker 4: forget North Korea or anything that's happening in Yemen or whatever,
Speaker 4: or China, all the human rights violations in the world
Speaker 4: are apparently carried out by Israel. Well, it's just patently absurd.
Speaker 1: He is Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu.
Speaker 6: What a travesty of justice, what a disgrace the prosecutor
Speaker 6: who is absurd charges against me and Israel's defense minister.
Speaker 6: I'm merely an attempt to deny Israel the basic right
Speaker 6: of self defense, and I assure you one then this
Speaker 6: attempt will utterly fail.
Speaker 4: The whole U N system is politically corrupted, full of ideology,
Speaker 4: extremely undemocratic, not really consistent in its view of human rights.
Speaker 4: The U and often will have a women's rights medi
Speaker 4: headed by Saudi Arabia, a human rights committee headed by China,
Speaker 4: nuclear non Proliferation committee headed by Syria or North Korea
Speaker 4: or something. It's often farcical, and the International Criminal Court
Speaker 4: bears the same character, I think, and every so often
Speaker 4: Western democratic nations walk away from these institutions.
Speaker 1: The best coverage of the Middle East is at Theaustralian
Speaker 1: dot com dot AU twenty four seven. You can be
Speaker 1: the first to know by joining us subscribers at the
Speaker 1: Australian dot com dot au. While I've got you, there's
Speaker 1: a great new podcast by our friends at cod Sports
Speaker 1: called en Route to Paris. They've got sporting superstars from
Speaker 1: Arianne Tiitmas to Sally Fitzgibbons and Harry Garside and it's
Speaker 1: the perfect way to get across all the sports you'll
Speaker 1: need to be an expert in by July when the
Speaker 1: games kick off. Find en Route to Paris. Wherever you
Speaker 1: got this podcast, we'll be back after this break.
Speaker 2: I have reasonable grounds to believe, on the basis of
Speaker 2: evidence collected and examined by my office, that Israeli Prime
Speaker 2: Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Minister of Defense Jav Gallant bear
Speaker 2: criminal responsibility for the following international crimes committed on the
Speaker 2: territory of the State of Palestine from at least the
Speaker 2: eighth of October twenty twenty three. The crimes include starvation
Speaker 2: of civilians as a method of warfare.
Speaker 1: Why do you think starvation has been chosen as the
Speaker 1: war crime that Israel is accused of, Greg, given that
Speaker 1: we've seen a bombardment, we've seen a siege, We've seen
Speaker 1: aerial attacks. There's a lot of things that one could
Speaker 1: accuse Israel or if one was minded to do so, well, I.
Speaker 4: Don't think so, because war is a violent business, but
Speaker 4: states are allowed to wage war in their own self defense.
Speaker 4: Australia has been to war many times. It's a very
Speaker 4: very violent business and states are entitled to be very
Speaker 4: violent in the prosecution of a just war within the
Speaker 4: laws of war. It's wrong to suggest that the Israeli
Speaker 4: justice system would not look at an issue of starvation
Speaker 4: if that were at all credible. It's not remotely credible.
Speaker 4: Hundreds of thousands of tons of food Aid have gone
Speaker 4: into Gaza facilitated by Israel. At the moment, Gaza's border
Speaker 4: with Egypt is closed, So if the ICC wanted to
Speaker 4: prosecute someone for starving Gaza, it could prosecute Egypt because
Speaker 4: it won't allow AID to go into Gaza. Why would
Speaker 4: the ICC move so quickly when the whole idea of
Speaker 4: the ICC is that it only moves if normal national
Speaker 4: jurisdictions have failed, Well, they will be. I can guarantee
Speaker 4: it a thousand judicial reviews of this war within Israel,
Speaker 4: because that's what democracies do. Israel's a twenty four character democracy,
Speaker 4: that's what it will do. But of course, if Israel
Speaker 4: actually was starving a population, that would be a war crime.
Speaker 4: But there is just no evidence of this whatsoever. In fact,
Speaker 4: AID shipments when they've gone in, have been stolen by Hummas.
Speaker 4: They've been attacked by Hummas, the AID crossing points have
Speaker 4: been attacked by Hamas. No one has made it more
Speaker 4: difficult for AID to get into Palestinians than Hamas. And
Speaker 4: of course the moral responsibility for the whole thing rest
Speaker 4: with Hummas.
Speaker 1: So let's look at that argument the other way Greek.
Speaker 1: If the ICC is supposed to act where local legal
Speaker 1: processes are absent, that applies to Hamas, doesn't it. There
Speaker 1: are no gars and courts that are going to prosecute
Speaker 1: Hermas leaders.
Speaker 4: Well. Of course, the prosecution of Hamas is justified, but
Speaker 4: the International Criminal Court doesn't generally prosecute terrorist groups. Of course,
Speaker 4: there won't be a legal process against Tummas unless Israel
Speaker 4: conducts it. But the ICC isn't taking any action against Tummas.
Speaker 4: The ISC is the last thing that would travel Hummas
Speaker 4: on the list of Hamas's enemies, internal and external, the
Speaker 4: ISC would rank about fivey twelve or something. The Israelis,
Speaker 4: according to the U S Secretary of State Anthny Blincoln
Speaker 4: and the British Foreign Secretary David Cameron, were offering an
Speaker 4: extremely generous ceasepire. Those were the words of Blincoln and Cameron,
Speaker 4: not the words of the Israelis. And all Hummas had
Speaker 4: to do to secure this sea spire was to release
Speaker 4: thirty three breathing Israeli hostages. They refused to do so,
Speaker 4: so the International Criminal Court apparently demands that Israel simply
Speaker 4: has to surrender to Hamas, and it's not allowed to
Speaker 4: wage war against Hamas, but Hamas can wage war at
Speaker 4: candat Israel. It's a preposterous non sequitur. The prosecution makes
Speaker 4: no sense except in the context of a worldview which
Speaker 4: sees Israel as inherently an illegitimate state and therefore everything
Speaker 4: it does is essentially illegitimate.
Speaker 1: Greg Sheridan is The Australian's Foreign editor. Thanks for joining
Speaker 1: us on the front. We'll be back tomorrow and in
Speaker 1: the meantime you can check out Australia's Best Journalism twenty
Speaker 1: four to seven at Vaustralian dot com dot au.