Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff give you, guys, the best independent
Speaker 2: coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about,
Speaker 2: it just means the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 2: But enough with that, let's get to the show. Hello, everybody,
Speaker 2: there's some major breaking news I wanted to bring everybody tonight.
Speaker 2: It's about seven thirty pm here on the East Coast.
Speaker 2: Let's put this up there on the screen. US and
Speaker 2: British military have officially launched massive retaliatory strikes against the
Speaker 2: Iranian backed who Thi's in Yemen, striking approximately a dozen
Speaker 2: sites all across the country of Yemen on the Iranian
Speaker 2: back to militia, which has launched several missiles and attacks
Speaker 2: on ships in the Red Sea. So this is obviously
Speaker 2: a breaking news situation, so we don't have a full
Speaker 2: amount of the details. What we do know are that
Speaker 2: the militaries and the governments that were involved. While it
Speaker 2: was just the United States and the UK, it was
Speaker 2: quote with support from Australia, the Netherlands, Bahrain, Canada. All
Speaker 2: these joint air strikes. These strikes involved US aircraft, US
Speaker 2: ships and submarines as well as whatever the Brits were
Speaker 2: able to bring to the table. We have a little
Speaker 2: bit of the video. I want this to just play
Speaker 2: while I'm talking a little bit about this. We can
Speaker 2: put that up there right now. Yemeny sources have confirmed
Speaker 2: that the strikes actually occurred. All of this within the
Speaker 2: last thirty or forty minutes or so, series of ballistic
Speaker 2: missiles apparently launched from Yemen towards targets in the Red Sea,
Speaker 2: possibly in retaliation. Now we have a very short reaction
Speaker 2: from the Houthy Group, a statement that they put out
Speaker 2: on telegram. They say, quote, we are with Palestine, we
Speaker 2: will not back down from our position, and we will
Speaker 2: respond to any aggression against us. To reiterate here, the
Speaker 2: HOO these the Iranian back group. This has been the
Speaker 2: twenty seven now attacks that they have mounted since November nineteenth,
Speaker 2: where they decided to begin attacking both ships moving through
Speaker 2: the Red Sea that were going towards Israel, and it
Speaker 2: later began basically a full scale operation that has mounted
Speaker 2: now major response from the United States, from the UK
Speaker 2: and a so called coalition which eventually fell apart. Of course,
Speaker 2: the reason why the Red Sea is so important is
Speaker 2: that it is one of the major thoroughfares of traffic
Speaker 2: for global shipping. It has caused hundreds of billions of
Speaker 2: dollars already to be lost because many ships have had
Speaker 2: to divert their traffic around the Horn of Africa, particularly
Speaker 2: hurting European markets Israeli's ports as well. Specifically, they are
Speaker 2: ships which had been targeted by who, the suicide drones
Speaker 2: and others. This has frankly just been a long time coming.
Speaker 2: Now the United States hasn't been engaged not only with
Speaker 2: anti ballistic anti ship missiles that they've had to shoot
Speaker 2: down from the US guided missile destroyers, We've also had
Speaker 2: multiple other instances. The latest last one it appears to
Speaker 2: be the quote unquote straw that books the Camel's back
Speaker 2: just yesterday two am Yemen time with an anti ship
Speaker 2: ballistic missile. But there previously had been instances where you
Speaker 2: had boats that were literally shot from US military helicopters.
Speaker 2: Now all of this obviously has happened after the war
Speaker 2: in Gaza the Israeli bombing specifically now the Hoho Thies
Speaker 2: Iranian back group, say that they are doing this in
Speaker 2: response to Israeli military action. They claim that they will
Speaker 2: stop their strikes if there is a ceasefire in Gaza,
Speaker 2: and there was diminished activity whenever a ceasefire had previously occurred.
Speaker 2: Now this is clearly the United States decided that's not
Speaker 2: something they're going to push for, and the Israeli certainly
Speaker 2: aren't as well. So now the US the UK are
Speaker 2: the ones who are militarily involved. This is especially significant.
Speaker 2: This is the first United States military strike on the
Speaker 2: territory of Yemen since twenty and sixteen, so it's been
Speaker 2: quite a long time. And just to take people a
Speaker 2: little bit back for the context, the Hohothis have been
Speaker 2: involved in a brutal civil war inside of Yemen now
Speaker 2: for years. They were actually the target of a nine
Speaker 2: year bombing campaign from the Saudi Arabia and the Amarants
Speaker 2: the UAE, largely because they are Iranian backed, and these
Speaker 2: are regional rivalries between Iran, Saudi Arabia and the ua
Speaker 2: for control of Yemen, which has been very strategic position
Speaker 2: as we can all see as for Wry this happened. Now,
Speaker 2: the problem in the question mark here is going to
Speaker 2: be if this US response, which the United States and
Speaker 2: initial statement said was quote unquote proportional, whether this will
Speaker 2: deter action. Now, previously we had a statement from the
Speaker 2: WHO thies that said that if there was any action
Speaker 2: against them, quote, any American aggression will never remain without
Speaker 2: a response. That response will not be at the level
Speaker 2: of the operation that was recently carried out in targeting
Speaker 2: the American at sea with more than twenty four aircraft
Speaker 2: and a number of missiles. The response is greater than that. Again,
Speaker 2: that's according to the WHO these This attack seems to
Speaker 2: have been coordinated with some of the other powers in
Speaker 2: the region. President CSI of Egypt apparently received a call
Speaker 2: earlier today from the Prime Minister of the UK, Rishi Sunak,
Speaker 2: who telegraphed quite a bit you know, given there, and
Speaker 2: they had a full meeting of their cabinet and others
Speaker 2: who were notified, and there was quite a bit of
Speaker 2: advanced knowledge that the strike was going to occur. Nonetheless,
Speaker 2: I mean the strike is still significant just for the
Speaker 2: main reason that this is the first expansion and direct intervention.
Speaker 2: Now you know, at the behest of the United States,
Speaker 2: the UK, two NATO allies into this situation and to
Speaker 2: this war. It really does, you know, raise a lot
Speaker 2: of questions about where this goes. The Huthis have they
Speaker 2: are not Hamas, They are much more on par with Hesbaala.
Speaker 2: Their military capability is pretty big. I mean, they've got
Speaker 2: ballistic missiles, They've had the capacity now to shutdown shipping
Speaker 2: in the Red Sea. They've got a decent amount of
Speaker 2: military capability that they've been supplied from Iran for almost
Speaker 2: a decade now. Who knows how many strongholds that they have.
Speaker 2: As I said, you know previously on our show, the
Speaker 2: main concern about knocking out quote unquote who the infrastructure
Speaker 2: and all of that is that they're very well equipped
Speaker 2: to sustain bombing as they showed us and the situation
Speaker 2: with Saudi Arabia and with the UAE and their bombing campaign.
Speaker 2: There's also currently an international peace negotiation that was previously
Speaker 2: going on inside of Yemen, and this could turn this
Speaker 2: even to more of a catastrophe. Don't forget before the
Speaker 2: humanitarian situation in Gaza, Yemen was one of the worst
Speaker 2: humanitarian situations in the world and there was even bipartisan
Speaker 2: outrage here in the United States about the Saudi bombing
Speaker 2: campaign in Yemen, So we can't forget that this is
Speaker 2: a volatile situation. It very much could lead to an
Speaker 2: expanded American presence inside of the war end. It's one
Speaker 2: of those where you know, this leads to all kinds
Speaker 2: of possible scenarios. The Houthi's very unlikely to just simply
Speaker 2: stop as a result of this. Who knows if the
Speaker 2: United States did you know, really carry out the strikes
Speaker 2: on significant military targets. We know what they say we'll
Speaker 2: see right now.
Speaker 3: It's literally in the.
Speaker 2: Middle of the night, gemon time, so I think we'll
Speaker 2: get a little bit of video and others in the
Speaker 2: morning that we'll be able to assess whether we were
Speaker 2: able to do some damage. But the big question mark
Speaker 2: is that, like I said at the beginning, there's been
Speaker 2: some initial reports now that there were a hoothy response
Speaker 2: retaliatory attacks. Now we don't know their night vision capabilities,
Speaker 2: what their radar systems and all that look like, whether
Speaker 2: there's self functional after the site. But when we wake
Speaker 2: up in the morning, we certainly could see continued retaliatory
Speaker 2: strikes as the hoo. Theies have mounted daytime and nighttime
Speaker 2: attacks now in the past, but overall that's what we
Speaker 2: know so far from the US the UK. This has
Speaker 2: been confirmed from the Pentagon. President Biden originally was supposed
Speaker 2: to make a statement, according to the UK media, but
Speaker 2: he did not do so. Like I said, recording here
Speaker 2: now seven thirty approximately Eastern time, just checking to make
Speaker 2: sure that we haven't seen anything. Oh actually, here we go.
Speaker 2: Literally just came flashed across the wire. Statement from President
Speaker 2: Biden quote, these strikes are in direct response to an
Speaker 2: unprecedented hoothy attacks against international maritime vessels in the Red Sea,
Speaker 2: including the use of anti ship ballistack missiles for the
Speaker 2: first time in history. These attacks have endangered US personnel,
Speaker 2: civilian mariners, and our partners, jeopardizing trade, and threatened freedom
Speaker 2: of navigation. More than fifty nations have now been affected
Speaker 2: in twenty seven attacks on international commercial shipping. Crews from
Speaker 2: more than twenty countries have been threatened or taken hostage
Speaker 2: in acts of piracy. And so in that basically in
Speaker 2: that statement giving a lengthy, pretty long justification for the
Speaker 2: reason that the strikes did occur. So that's the initial
Speaker 2: response confirmation there from the White House. We will see
Speaker 2: whether we're going to get any more detail and color.
Speaker 2: We will bring all of you the news of that
Speaker 2: in the morning, but just wanted to give you a
Speaker 2: little bit of a little bit just of an initial
Speaker 2: reaction the breaking news that situation. Here. I have the
Speaker 2: full now White House statement that I'm looking here, and
Speaker 2: it just says the ending says today's defensive action follows
Speaker 2: this extensive diplomatic campaign and HOOTI rebels escalating attacks against
Speaker 2: our commercial vessels. These targeted strikes are a clear message
Speaker 2: the United States and our partners will not tolerate attacks
Speaker 2: on our personnel or allow hostile actors to impareil freedom
Speaker 2: of navigation in one of the world's most commercial shipping routes.
Speaker 2: I will not hesitate to direct further measures to protect
Speaker 2: our people and the free flow of international commerce as necessary.
Speaker 2: So there you go. That's everything that we've got right
Speaker 2: now so far. As we said, probably going to see
Speaker 2: initial and more battle damage assessment and all that whenever
Speaker 2: we wake up in the morning. Wishing you all good night,
Speaker 2: and I hope you can sleep. Unfortunately, though it does
Speaker 2: appear that you know the prospect of regional war, probably
Speaker 2: probably higher than it's been in a long time, and
Speaker 2: a fearful moment now almost one hundred days into the
Speaker 2: war in Gaza. So there we go, and like I said,
Speaker 2: we will have more information for all of you tomorrow.
Speaker 2: Shout out to our premium members who make all of
Speaker 2: these possible. Our crew all been stand by all day
Speaker 2: and they helped me put together this video, the elements
Speaker 2: and all of that. So if you can help us
Speaker 2: out at Breakingpoints dot Com and I will see you
Speaker 2: all later.
Speaker 4: Hey, guys.
Speaker 1: As you know, the International Court of Justice has been
Speaker 1: hearing this week South Africa's case against Israel. South Africa
Speaker 1: alleges that Israel is committing genocide and that they are
Speaker 1: also failing to prevent genocide, and they are seeking right now,
Speaker 1: not a complete finding on the merits, but simply a
Speaker 1: temporary injunction. That finding would basically be that it is
Speaker 1: plausible that Israel is committing genocide and thus immediate measures
Speaker 1: need to be taken in order to protect the rights
Speaker 1: of Palestinian civilians. So yesterday on the show, we broke
Speaker 1: down for you some of what South Africa had to
Speaker 1: say in their statements in presenting their case, and this
Speaker 1: morning I took a listen to what the Israeli defense was,
Speaker 1: so I wanted to spend some time breaking that down
Speaker 1: for you before I jump into the arguments that they
Speaker 1: are making. Of course, they are necessarily responding to the
Speaker 1: allegations that South Africa laid out, and so I wanted
Speaker 1: to start by putting some of the context of kind
Speaker 1: of the high level view of the core of South
Speaker 1: Africa's arguments on the merits. And I'll talk a little
Speaker 1: bit later about some of the legal technical issues that
Speaker 1: are also in dispute, and we can discuss those and
Speaker 1: what the South Africans are saying and what the Israelis
Speaker 1: are saying as well. But this is the overall context
Speaker 1: that Israel has to respond to and that they attempted
Speaker 1: to respond to in their response in front of the
Speaker 1: International Court of Justice today. So South Africa spent a
Speaker 1: lot of time, understandably, since they're alleging genocide on the
Speaker 1: mass death that Israel has caused in the Gaza Strip
Speaker 1: and the large vast amount of destruction of civilian infrastructure.
Speaker 1: EUROMED Monitor has been tracking this.
Speaker 5: Now.
Speaker 1: The South Africans used a lot of un assessments euromed
Speaker 1: Monitor both uses un assessments and also their own analysis,
Speaker 1: so the numbers are not exactly the same, but this
Speaker 1: is just to give you a sense of the top
Speaker 1: level case the South Africans were making yesterday, so this
Speaker 1: is an article for euromed Monitor. They say, in the
Speaker 1: fourth month of Israeli genocide, four percent of Gaza's population
Speaker 1: is dead, missing, or injured. Seventy percent of the strip's
Speaker 1: infrastructure is destroyed. They go on to reiterate these numbers
Speaker 1: and they also talk about the number of injured gosins
Speaker 1: with long term disabilities. The rights group said, noting that
Speaker 1: the genocide, and this is their assessment that it is
Speaker 1: a genocide, is a mass disabling event. They highlightighted Israel's
Speaker 1: continuous AirLand, and sea attacks that have destroyed about seventy
Speaker 1: percent of the Gaza Strip civilian facilities in infrastructure since
Speaker 1: October seventh, citing the clear Israeli aim of implementing collective
Speaker 1: punishment against the entire population and making the strip, which
Speaker 1: has been under siege for over seventeen years, uninhabitable. Israel
Speaker 1: is pushing hundreds of thousands of civilians towards mass forced displacement.
Speaker 1: According to their estimates, thirty thousand, six hundred and seventy
Speaker 1: six Palestinines have been killed. That includes those who have
Speaker 1: been declared killed and also those who have are buried
Speaker 1: under the rubble and presumed dead. Their assessment is that
Speaker 1: that includes twenty thousand, two hundred and one civilians, so
Speaker 1: overwhelming number of civilians, and includes twelve thousand and forty children,
Speaker 1: six one hundred three women, two hundred and forty one
Speaker 1: health workers, and one hundred and five journalists. An additional
Speaker 1: fifty eight thousand, nine hundred and sixty individuals have been injured,
Speaker 1: hundreds of whom are currently in serious condition. So that
Speaker 1: is the context of the mass death in the US,
Speaker 1: extent of the destruction that has been inflicted both on
Speaker 1: the you know, civilian population, also on all the civilian infrastructure,
Speaker 1: on aid workers, hospital workers, women, children. That was a
Speaker 1: major focus of South Africa's case presented yesterday. The other
Speaker 1: piece that we've talked a lot about and that they
Speaker 1: spent a good bit of time on yesterday was establishing
Speaker 1: what they claimed to be genocidal intent. And this is
Speaker 1: not an easy task. Normally, you don't have political officials
Speaker 1: and military officials walking around saying, hey, guys, we're doing
Speaker 1: a genocide. And so they had a list and also
Speaker 1: some video evidence of officials up to and including BB
Speaker 1: NETANYAHUO who were talking about, you know, the destruction of
Speaker 1: the Palestinian people, the destruction of Gaza, et cetera. And
Speaker 1: so just as a reminder of some of what they
Speaker 1: really focused on, because I think they anticipated that Israel
Speaker 1: would say, oh, well, a lot of these people, you know,
Speaker 1: the Minister of Antiquities or whatever, they don't really have
Speaker 1: any governing authority. They're not the ones in charge. So
Speaker 1: what matters is the people at the top and the
Speaker 1: policy that they're setting. So in light of anticipating that
Speaker 1: argument from the Israelis, which they did make a version
Speaker 1: of today, they spent some time on comments from Prime
Speaker 1: Minister Benjamin Nenyaho, who no one could argue doesn't have
Speaker 1: some influence here and isn't in control of what's going on,
Speaker 1: and then connected those to comments that were being made
Speaker 1: by rank and file soldiers on the ground who clearly
Speaker 1: took those comments seriously and were then implementing them in
Speaker 1: the way that they were going about, you know, their
Speaker 1: assault on Gaza there on the ground. So just as
Speaker 1: a reminder of that. Let me go ahead and play
Speaker 1: those comments from NETANYAHUO talking about Amelek, the historic biblical
Speaker 1: foe of the Jewish people, which you know the Bible
Speaker 1: tells them to destroy the seat of Amelek, the camel,
Speaker 1: the sheep, the suckling, the oxen, everything. Here is what
Speaker 1: he had to say very early on in the war
Speaker 1: about their aims. Take a listen.
Speaker 5: You must remember what a Malek has done to you,
Speaker 5: says our Holy Bible. And we do remember, and we
Speaker 5: are fighting our grave. Troops and combatants who are now
Speaker 5: in Gaza or around Gaza and in all other regions
Speaker 5: in Israel are joining this chain of Jewish heroes.
Speaker 1: And talking about Amelek. And then I can also show
Speaker 1: you the response from the soldiers on the ground. This
Speaker 1: part is in Hebrew, so I will read you the
Speaker 1: subtitles as well. Here we go. This is soldiers who
Speaker 1: are cheering and singing this song where they talk about Amelek.
Speaker 1: And they also showed another one where they echoed the
Speaker 1: words of President Isaac Hertzog saying there are no uninvolved civilians.
Speaker 1: Here is that portion of South Africa's presentation. Okay, so
Speaker 1: this was part of their attempt to establish intent. Of course,
Speaker 1: as we've covered extensively on breaking points, and I did
Speaker 1: as well in my original video breaking down the South
Speaker 1: African filing to the ICJ, that was a preview to
Speaker 1: the arguments that they laid out yesterday. They had numerous
Speaker 1: pages of Israeli top Israeli officials, of top military officials,
Speaker 1: people who are in a position to influence government policy,
Speaker 1: you know, per their filing, and the comments that they made,
Speaker 1: things like you know, we want knock, but twenty twenty
Speaker 1: three were fighting human animals, they should be treated as such.
Speaker 1: Were instituting a complete siege that was you have Glant,
Speaker 1: the Defense minister. So those were the two sort of
Speaker 1: primary components on the merits. Like I said, there were
Speaker 1: some other legal technical issues, but those were the major
Speaker 1: claims that Israel was then tasked with responding with today.
Speaker 1: So let me go ahead and play for you a
Speaker 1: little bit of how they approached that. Those of you
Speaker 1: who have been listening to Israeli rhetoric even just you know,
Speaker 1: since October seventh, a lot of these arguments won't be
Speaker 1: surprising to you. The first thing that they did was
Speaker 1: to try to establish that the context that South Africa
Speaker 1: put before the court that that was not the right
Speaker 1: way to think about this conflict that you know. They
Speaker 1: first started by saying, listen, we understand better than anyone
Speaker 1: with this side convention is about because of the horrors
Speaker 1: of the Holocaust. They went on to say that effectively,
Speaker 1: this is was presented by South Africa as this one
Speaker 1: sided assault. In reality, this is a war between two actors.
Speaker 1: You know, I would say left out of the Israeli
Speaker 1: analysis is the fact that one of these actors is
Speaker 1: a state power, funded and equipped with the by the
Speaker 1: world's superpower, and with incredible offensive capabilities, and the other
Speaker 1: is a non state actor with very limited capabilities, very
Speaker 1: limited ability to inflict damage on the Israeli people in
Speaker 1: October seventh. They also talked, obviously, aside from October seventh,
Speaker 1: where they were able to inflict absolute horrors on many
Speaker 1: Israeli people, they also talked a lot about October seventh,
Speaker 1: and that that context was missing from the South African complaint.
Speaker 1: I don't think that's particularly fair because the atrocities that
Speaker 1: were committed on October seventh, South Africa doesn't dispute that
Speaker 1: their argument is simply which is true. According to international
Speaker 1: law that even if you were subject to atrocities, it
Speaker 1: does not then justify you turning around and also committing atrocities,
Speaker 1: and it certainly doesn't justify genocide. So they also abhor
Speaker 1: the violence and attacks on civilians that were committed on
Speaker 1: October seventh. But their argument is, you know, this is
Speaker 1: essentially irrelevant given the acts that Israeli's have committed, the
Speaker 1: idf at the Beha of top Israeli officials that are
Speaker 1: being committed on the ground against Gazans. So in addition,
Speaker 1: and this is the part that I'll go ahead and
Speaker 1: play for you so you can get a sense of
Speaker 1: some of these arguments, they basically argue that listen, if
Speaker 1: anyone is committing genocide here, it is hummas. So let's
Speaker 1: take a listen to that argument.
Speaker 6: Appreciate three core aspects of the present proceedings which the
Speaker 6: applicant has obscured from view. First, but if there have
Speaker 6: been acts that may be characterized as genocidal, then they
Speaker 6: have been perpetrated against Israel. If there is a concern
Speaker 6: about the obligations of states under the Genocide Convention, then
Speaker 6: it is in relation to their responsibilities to act against
Speaker 6: Tarmas's proudly declared agenda of annihilation, which is not a
Speaker 6: secret and is not in doubt the annihilises language of Kamas.
Speaker 6: This chapter is repeated regularly by its leaders, with the goal,
Speaker 6: in the words of one member of Hamas's political bureau,
Speaker 6: of the cleansing of Palestine of the filth of the Jews.
Speaker 6: It is expressed no less chilling in the words of
Speaker 6: senior member Razi Khamad te Lebanese television on October twenty fourth,
Speaker 6: twenty twenty three, who refers to the October seventh attexts
Speaker 6: what Hamas calls the alaka fla.
Speaker 3: As follows, Ani asked, yes them. At the moment.
Speaker 6: In the continuation of this interview, Hamas is asked Kramas asked,
Speaker 6: does that mean the annihilation of Israel? Yes, of course,
Speaker 6: he says, the existence of Israel is illogical, and then
Speaker 6: he says, nobody should blame us for the things we do.
Speaker 6: On October seventh, October tenth, October one million, everything we
Speaker 6: do is justified end quote. Given that on October seventh,
Speaker 6: before any military response by Israel, South Africa issued an
Speaker 6: official statement blaming is quote the recent conflagration essentially blaming
Speaker 6: Israel for the murder of its own citizens. One wonders
Speaker 6: whether the applicant agrees.
Speaker 1: So a few things of note there. I mean, you
Speaker 1: could very glibly describe as portion of their defense as
Speaker 1: but Hamas and you know, legally, again, South Africa does
Speaker 1: not dispute that whorse and likely atrocities were committed by
Speaker 1: Hamas on October seventh. That does not justify or allow
Speaker 1: for genocide then to occur. You can also hear at
Speaker 1: the end there there's some very strong insinuations made about
Speaker 1: South Africa that South Africa is basically in league with Hamas.
Speaker 1: This is a portion of their defense that they previewed
Speaker 1: going into today's hearing in stronger and less diplomatic words
Speaker 1: that were said for consumption for the public. They said
Speaker 1: something like, you know, they're in league with Hamas's rape
Speaker 1: regime or something of that nature, so effectively trying to
Speaker 1: cast dis versions on the character of the South African
Speaker 1: leadership and effectively say, you know what, they're basically Hamas
Speaker 1: as well. In addition, they spend some time casting some
Speaker 1: doubt on the overall numbers of deaths, saying, you know,
Speaker 1: these are numbers that come from Hamas themselves, So how
Speaker 1: can you trust them? And this is something that you
Speaker 1: know they've said repeatedly from the beginning. Now, one way
Speaker 1: you could alleviate that concern over the veracity of the
Speaker 1: numbers is if you allowed in international observers who could
Speaker 1: independently assess what the actual death toll is. That has
Speaker 1: not been allowed. We can also say that in previous conflicts,
Speaker 1: after when international observers were able to check out what
Speaker 1: the held Maas led health ministry was producing in the
Speaker 1: way of death toll, that it ended up being quite accurate.
Speaker 1: In addition, they also called into question how many civilians
Speaker 1: were actually being killed, So there was an effort to say, okay,
Speaker 1: these numbers, Yeah, it sounds bad, but it's not really
Speaker 1: clear that these are even accurate numbers. And then you
Speaker 1: will also be unsurprised to learn if you've been listening
Speaker 1: to Israelis during this conflict and previously, they also spent
Speaker 1: a lot of time saying, well, listen, of course we
Speaker 1: abhor any violence against civilians, but the real reason that
Speaker 1: this is occurring is because of Hamas using them as
Speaker 1: human shields, being under their hospitals, being under their schools,
Speaker 1: there were pictures showed, I believe, of like a child's bedroom,
Speaker 1: of Hamas using a residential house. And so they say, yes,
Speaker 1: there is a lot of destruction, you know, in the
Speaker 1: Gaza Strip, but this is because Hamas is using the
Speaker 1: civilian infrastructure for military purposes. And so even though we
Speaker 1: really regret it, we have to go in and destroy
Speaker 1: this because and it's because of Hamas that we have
Speaker 1: to do this now, you know, you might say on
Speaker 1: the other side, I might say, on the other side,
Speaker 1: Israel has used an amount of firepower and created a
Speaker 1: level of destruction. And this is something South Africa pointed
Speaker 1: to yesterday that is nearly unprecedented. I mean, this has
Speaker 1: been a short period of time already surpassed years of
Speaker 1: Allied bombing of dressed In for example. The entirety of
Speaker 1: the Gaza Strip is effectively already rendered uninhabitable. Hospitals have
Speaker 1: been you know, hospitals have been attacked and rendered unusable.
Speaker 1: This is another thing that South Africa talked about yesterday.
Speaker 1: And so Israel's response to that is basically to say, yes,
Speaker 1: maybe there's a lot of civilian infrastructure that has been destroyed,
Speaker 1: but it is really because of Hamas. They are the
Speaker 1: ones to blame for this. There was also a discussion
Speaker 1: about whether Israel does in fact have a right to
Speaker 1: defend themselves. One of the arguments made by South Africa yesterday,
Speaker 1: which is backed up by some scholars, is that since
Speaker 1: they are an occupying force, they don't actually have the
Speaker 1: right to defend themselves. So they spend some time on
Speaker 1: that as well. In addition, they to try to explain
Speaker 1: the very high civilian death toll and to try to
Speaker 1: show that the reason there are so many civilians who
Speaker 1: have been killed in their bombardment is not because of
Speaker 1: their actions, but in spite of their actions to try
Speaker 1: to you know, Russian aid and to take these extraordinary
Speaker 1: measures to protect civilians. So they spend a lot of
Speaker 1: time making the case that they are in fact going
Speaker 1: to extraordinary lengths to try to protect the civilian population
Speaker 1: in the Gaza strip. Let me play for you a
Speaker 1: bit of that argument and the.
Speaker 4: Time allotted, I have been able to describe only some
Speaker 4: of Israel's efforts to mitigate civilian harm and to address
Speaker 4: the humanitarian situation in Gaza. But even this mere fraction
Speaker 4: is enough to demonstrate how tendentious and partial the applicants'
Speaker 4: presentations of these facts is and certainly enough to conclude
Speaker 4: that the allegation of intent to commit genocide is baseless.
Speaker 4: If Israel had such intent, would it delay a ground
Speaker 4: maneuver for weeks, urging civilians to seek favor space, and
Speaker 4: in doing so, sacrificing operational advantage. Would it invest massive
Speaker 4: resources to provide civilians details about where to go, when
Speaker 4: to go, how to go to leave areas of fighting.
Speaker 4: Would it maintain a detical units staffed with experts whose
Speaker 4: sole role is to facilitate aid and who continue to
Speaker 4: do so despite having their staff killed and kidnapped. When
Speaker 4: a population is ruled by a terrorist organization that cares
Speaker 4: more about wiping out its neighbor than about protecting its
Speaker 4: own civilians, there are acute challenges in protecting the civilian population.
Speaker 4: Those challenges are exacerbated by the dynamic and evolving nature
Speaker 4: of intense hostilities in an urban area where the enemy
Speaker 4: exploits hospitals, shelters, and critical infrastructure. Would Israel work continuously
Speaker 4: with international organizations and states, even reaching out to them
Speaker 4: on its own initiative, to find solutions to these challenges
Speaker 4: if it were seeking to destroy the population. Israel's efforts
Speaker 4: to mitigate the ravages of this war on civilians are
Speaker 4: the very opposite of intent to destroy them. Under these circumstances,
Speaker 4: Far from being the only inference that could reasonably be
Speaker 4: drawn from Israel's pattern of conduct, intent to commit genocide
Speaker 4: is not even a plausible inference.
Speaker 1: That language. They are very specifically chosen because the legal
Speaker 1: standard that South Africa is attempting to meet here and
Speaker 1: seeking a temporary injunction is it's plausible that there is
Speaker 1: a genocide being committed right now by Israel. So she
Speaker 1: cites there. Things that we hear from israelis a lot
Speaker 1: about listen, we do everything we can. We leaflet, we
Speaker 1: publish this whole map that shows people where they can
Speaker 1: go and where they can be safe. And we gave
Speaker 1: them time to leave the northern Gaza Strip. This is
Speaker 1: over a million people who were displaced from the northern
Speaker 1: part of the Gaza Strip. We gave them time to leave,
Speaker 1: We protected their safe corridors. This flies in the face
Speaker 1: of the testimony from South Africa. Yes, and what we've
Speaker 1: seen reported out during this war that even the places
Speaker 1: that they told people to flee to were not safe
Speaker 1: came under heavy bombardment, that there was massive civilian death
Speaker 1: in those places that had been declared quote unquote safe.
Speaker 1: You'll recall people, you know, we're told to flee to
Speaker 1: the south. They fled to Communist conunis, came under massive bombardment,
Speaker 1: they fled to Rafa, Rapha is now being is now
Speaker 1: the center of hostilities. And even the little area that
Speaker 1: they told people to flee to, claiming that there were
Speaker 1: provisions aid provisions there that didn't even exist. It's just
Speaker 1: basically a desert wastelane. Even that area wasn't safe. South
Speaker 1: Africa also talked about that people came under fire and
Speaker 1: under bombardment even as they were fleeing along these so
Speaker 1: called safe corridors. On the aid provision piece, she argues
Speaker 1: that listen, we're working with humanitarian organizations. We've increased the
Speaker 1: amount of aid that is going into the strip. This
Speaker 1: is counter to the original, you know, in the original
Speaker 1: comments in the war that they were implementing a complete siege,
Speaker 1: no medicine, no food, no fuel, no water, et cetera.
Speaker 1: And inconveniently for her argument, I'll mention two things. First
Speaker 1: of all, we just had actually two democratic US Senators
Speaker 1: Christmin Holland keep forgetting who the other one is. I'm
Speaker 1: just like standard issue Democratic senator who are just in
Speaker 1: the region saying that Israel has created a process that
Speaker 1: is impossible, that is blocking the provisioning of aid and
Speaker 1: severely limiting what is able to come into the strip.
Speaker 1: And you know that is borne out by the evidence
Speaker 1: of the suffering that Gosins are going through on the ground.
Speaker 1: This is a UN report, and again the ICJ being
Speaker 1: a UN body, it's significant this comes from the UN.
Speaker 1: Of course, this isn't like you know, the Hamasuled Health
Speaker 1: Ministry says, this is part the UN. Half of Gosin's
Speaker 1: are right now at risk of starving. According to the UN,
Speaker 1: more than ninety percent of palest means in the territory
Speaker 1: say they have regularly gone without food for a whole
Speaker 1: day according to the United Nations. I'll just read you
Speaker 1: a little bit of this report, because as much as
Speaker 1: the visuals of the bombing and the bullets are horrifying
Speaker 1: and shocking, even potentially more deadly in the end will
Speaker 1: be the hunger and the disease that is running rampant
Speaker 1: through the Gaza Strip. So they start with this speaking
Speaker 1: with a father here. Whi la Zat's four children have
Speaker 1: been hungry for weeks, but she's sorry. A mother here,
Speaker 1: but she can barely find them food they ask for.
Speaker 1: Sandwich is fruit juice, homemade Palestinian dishes like she used
Speaker 1: to cook before the war began, and a fleeting moment
Speaker 1: of internet access. She said. She once caught the children
Speaker 1: huddled around her phone to watch a YouTube video of
Speaker 1: someone eating French fries. The most they can hope for
Speaker 1: these days, she said in a recent telephone interview, is
Speaker 1: a can of peas, some cheese and an energy bar
Speaker 1: distributed as a family's rations by the UN once a
Speaker 1: week in Rafa City in southern Gaza, where they fled
Speaker 1: to in early December to escape Israeli embardment farther north.
Speaker 1: Is not nearly enough to feed her family of seven.
Speaker 1: It is a daily ruggle, said mid Zetor, thirty seven,
Speaker 1: whose children range in age from nine months to thirteen years.
Speaker 1: You feel you are under pressure and hopeless and you
Speaker 1: cannot provide anything. And here again are the numbers. Israel's
Speaker 1: war in Gaza has created a humanitarian catastrophe, with half
Speaker 1: of the population of about two point two million at
Speaker 1: risk of starvation and ninety percent saying that they regularly
Speaker 1: go without food for a whole day, The UN said
Speaker 1: in a recent report. Now, in an attempt to further
Speaker 1: rebut those numbers, the UN numbers that fifty percent are
Speaker 1: on the verge of starvation. Other experts have said that
Speaker 1: they have not seen this level of famine and certainly
Speaker 1: how quickly it's set in that this has already surpassed
Speaker 1: the horrible famine that Yemen has grappled with, you know,
Speaker 1: during Saudi bombardment, that we also work complicit with, by
Speaker 1: the way, So in order to attempt to rebut that,
Speaker 1: the Israelis also showed videos of Hamas militants taking control
Speaker 1: of AID trucks coming in and according to them, comandeering
Speaker 1: the aid supplies for their own fighters. That is very
Speaker 1: possible that there is some of that going on. I
Speaker 1: don't doubt it whatsoever. But we can go back to
Speaker 1: the overall numbers which AID agencies have repeatedly sounded the
Speaker 1: alarm on and said, this is nowhere near sufficient for
Speaker 1: what needs to come into the Gaza strip, especially given
Speaker 1: the fact that all of the agricultural not I shouldn't
Speaker 1: say all but some significant amount of the agricultural land
Speaker 1: in the Gaza Strip has been raised. There is no
Speaker 1: ability for Gosins to produce their own food. At this moment,
Speaker 1: all but one of the World Health Organizations or the
Speaker 1: World Food Programs affiliated bakeries had been shut down. So
Speaker 1: there are unbelievably difficult situations unfolding on the ground, not
Speaker 1: to mention disaster in terms of famine and spread of
Speaker 1: communicable diseases, incidents of diarrhea and children. These sorts of
Speaker 1: things have wildly surged because of the attacks on the
Speaker 1: civilian infrastructure, because of the blocking of sufficient aid to
Speaker 1: come into the Gaza Strip. I also thought this was
Speaker 1: another interesting thing I wanted to highlight for you guys.
Speaker 1: We covered on Breaking Points how the day before South
Speaker 1: Africa was set to mount their case bb Netnah who
Speaker 1: came out and made the statement that was like, we
Speaker 1: are not at war with the Palestinian citizens, We are
Speaker 1: only at war with Hamas and also repudiating the idea
Speaker 1: that they had any interest in ethnic cleansing. He didn't
Speaker 1: use those words, but in you know, pushing Gazans out
Speaker 1: of the Gaza Strip. This in direct odds, not only
Speaker 1: with the statements of extremist ministers Ben Kafir'smochrich, but also
Speaker 1: with reporting about Netnah who's own comments and own goals.
Speaker 1: So he very notably put this out the day before
Speaker 1: South Africa begins their case at the ic J, and
Speaker 1: in fact, those very comments were cited by Israel in
Speaker 1: their case today to say, yeah, he said that thing
Speaker 1: about Amelek, but what you really need to listen to
Speaker 1: is what he said two days ago where he said, no,
Speaker 1: we're not at war with the Palestinian civilians. And they said,
Speaker 1: you know, yes, you have these ministers who are popping off.
Speaker 1: They're very upset about what happened on October seventh, very understandably,
Speaker 1: but the people who actually set power, they are the
Speaker 1: ones that you know, are much more cool and even headed.
Speaker 1: And take a look at these other comments that they've
Speaker 1: said are at odds with those that can be construed
Speaker 1: as having genocidal intent. I also, in that same vein,
Speaker 1: I thought this was interesting. They also argued that the
Speaker 1: scope and intensity of Israel's operations have been decreasing, and
Speaker 1: claims that Israel's repeated pleasures to observe international law are
Speaker 1: enough to make provisional to block provisional measures and the
Speaker 1: reason I found that noteworthy as well. We did, and
Speaker 1: I believe we covered this on the show too, Yeah,
Speaker 1: we did. There have been recent comments from Defense Minister
Speaker 1: you Off Galana and others that they are moving into
Speaker 1: another phase. It's going to be more targeted, it's going
Speaker 1: to be less massive bombardment as the early phases were.
Speaker 1: And so the fact that they raised this in this
Speaker 1: case raised a couple of questions for me. I mean, first,
Speaker 1: we got to see it before we believe it. The
Speaker 1: civilian tech toll has continued to be very high, so
Speaker 1: we need to see evidence of this first. That's number one.
Speaker 1: Number two, it made me wonder if those comments about
Speaker 1: the new phase of war were actually that they were
Speaker 1: pressured into making those to try to bolster their case
Speaker 1: at the ICJ, basically saying like, look, yeah, the first
Speaker 1: part it was really brutal, it was really horrifying, lots
Speaker 1: of civilian infrastructure destroyed, people were hungry, people were being killed.
Speaker 1: But that's all over now already we're moving into another phase.
Speaker 1: So why would you issue this temporary injunction when we
Speaker 1: already are done with that part. We're already moving into
Speaker 1: this other phase. So that was noteworthy to me that
Speaker 1: they cited both BB's comments that he literally made the
Speaker 1: day before this all started to say, look, what are
Speaker 1: you talking about. BB's saying very reasonable things here at
Speaker 1: odds with many other things that he has said, and
Speaker 1: that all of the various cabinet ministers have said as well,
Speaker 1: and also that they are citing this purported shift to
Speaker 1: another phase of war. A lot of the media reporting
Speaker 1: had been that this change in tone from the Israelis
Speaker 1: was because of Biden administration pressure. I never really bought
Speaker 1: that this could be more accurately. What was going on
Speaker 1: is that they felt pressured by this case, which again
Speaker 1: is very interesting to me because my initial reaction when
Speaker 1: South Africa filed this petition was good for them, but
Speaker 1: I doubt it will matter. The fact that the Israelis
Speaker 1: have responded in such a vociferous way, and in such
Speaker 1: a I think you can accurately say, panicked way sort
Speaker 1: of demonstrated to me that perhaps there is more to
Speaker 1: this than I initially assumed. Let me talk just briefly
Speaker 1: about a couple of the legal technical matters, which I am,
Speaker 1: of course in not an ideal position to analyzes because
Speaker 1: I'm not a lawyer, but South Africa argued effectively that listen,
Speaker 1: there is you have to establish that there is an
Speaker 1: actual dispute between two countries to have standing to bring
Speaker 1: this case to the ICJ. South Africa yesterday late on Hey,
Speaker 1: we reached out to them here, we reached out to
Speaker 1: them there. We issued a statement, they didn't respond, they
Speaker 1: didn't change, and so there is very clearly a dispute
Speaker 1: here with merit and that's why we have standing to
Speaker 1: bring this case. Israel disagreed with that. They said there
Speaker 1: wasn't that much time given it wasn't a serious engagement.
Speaker 1: It was just more of a perfunctory box checking in
Speaker 1: terms of establishing this standing and that there is actually
Speaker 1: technically a dispute. So who's right on that? I really
Speaker 1: I am not in a position to say, I don't
Speaker 1: really know. It certainly seems to layman's perspective there a
Speaker 1: dispute here, but I don't know the technical legalese and
Speaker 1: whether that enables some members of the ICJ to not
Speaker 1: have to actually weigh in on the mass death and
Speaker 1: starvation and bombing of civilian infrastructure and hospitals, et cetera,
Speaker 1: gives them that little technical legal loophole to get out
Speaker 1: of having to deal with any of that. That's possible,
Speaker 1: just don't know. In addition, the argument for South Africa
Speaker 1: is that we need a temporary injunction. And I'm using
Speaker 1: that language because that's how we talk about in the
Speaker 1: American court system. They use a different word in terms
Speaker 1: of the ICJ court system, but the idea is the same.
Speaker 1: We need a temporary injunction to stop is the Israeli
Speaker 1: government from impinging on the rights of Palestinians. Effectively, we
Speaker 1: need a ceasefire now while this case is being tried
Speaker 1: on the merits to figure out whether there is a
Speaker 1: violation of the Genocide Convention. So our interest is in
Speaker 1: protecting the rights of Palestinians. The Israeli argument was, well,
Speaker 1: if you do that, you're not protecting the rights of
Speaker 1: Palestinians because anyway, by the way, we've shifted to this
Speaker 1: other phase now anyway, but you will be infringing on
Speaker 1: our rights to self defense. So those are the rights
Speaker 1: that you really need to focus on protecting. Here is
Speaker 1: our right to defend ourselves in the wake of October seventh.
Speaker 1: The last thing I'll show you is after Israel concluded
Speaker 1: their presentation. There was a bit of a response from
Speaker 1: South Africa and I thought this part was particularly poignant, relevant, etc.
Speaker 1: It's a good point. South Africa's legal team basically said, listen,
Speaker 1: if Israel's right. If they're right now I'm adding this part.
Speaker 1: They're right about the their intent provisioning of aid. If
Speaker 1: they're right about that, you know, these various things are
Speaker 1: Hamas's fault. If they're right that the death estimates are overestimated,
Speaker 1: that there's far less civilian death far fewer children who
Speaker 1: have been murdered here. If they're right about those things,
Speaker 1: then they would have allowed international investigation teams to enter Gaza.
Speaker 1: And I think that's a very good point because on
Speaker 1: a lot of this you just have to take Israel's word.
Speaker 1: To take their word that they're really working hard to
Speaker 1: try to avoid civilian casualties, you have to take their
Speaker 1: word about the various supplies that they claim that they
Speaker 1: are shipping in and providing, and the responses that they
Speaker 1: are enabling. And so without having international observers in to
Speaker 1: actually see those things, you can't prove or disprove what
Speaker 1: Israel is claiming in their own defense. So I think
Speaker 1: that is an incredibly valid point, and effectively, you know,
Speaker 1: the fact that Israel does not allow that to occur
Speaker 1: means we have to rely on things like the media
Speaker 1: loves to put it Hamas led Health Ministry for data
Speaker 1: about what is actually happening, because no one else can
Speaker 1: really get in to assess what is happening. But we
Speaker 1: certainly know, you know, based on the UNS report, the
Speaker 1: level of hunger, the threat of starvation, the threat of
Speaker 1: a famine, and you know, the horrors that civilians have
Speaker 1: been subjected to. Israel doesn't really dispute that. They don't
Speaker 1: really dispute that this has been horrendous for civilians, that
Speaker 1: there has been massive pain and suffering as a result
Speaker 1: of these hostilities. They just say, listen, you're focusing only
Speaker 1: on us. Really, most of this is Hamas's fault. They
Speaker 1: could end this now. If anyone it should be accused
Speaker 1: of genocide, it's Humas, not us. And that was the
Speaker 1: sort of bulk of their presentation to the International Court
Speaker 1: of Justice. I spoke for Crystal Colin Friends with Norman
Speaker 1: Finkelstein yesterday and he had originally which we played on
Speaker 1: the show. We asked him or Katie Helper had actually
Speaker 1: asked him, what do you think is going to happen here?
Speaker 1: And he went through the list of the judges and
Speaker 1: what countries they're affiliated with, because even though we're talking
Speaker 1: a lot about the merits, a lot of this ends
Speaker 1: up being quite political. And he felt very pessimistic in
Speaker 1: that interview with Katie Halper that South Africa would prevail.
Speaker 1: When we talked to him yesterday, Kyle and I, he
Speaker 1: was somewhat more optimistic that based on the merits and
Speaker 1: based on the fact that much of the data that
Speaker 1: is relied on in the South African case comes from
Speaker 1: the UN and the ICJZUN body, he felt a bit
Speaker 1: more optimistic. Now. He didn't think that it was open
Speaker 1: and shut, there was no guarantees, but he was a
Speaker 1: bit more hopeful that they might prevail. As for me,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm new to really understanding the workings of
Speaker 1: this process. I have no idea where things go from here.
Speaker 1: They could find some legal technicality, like I said, to
Speaker 1: try to sort of find a loophole to get out
Speaker 1: of really weighing in. They could find it is plausible
Speaker 1: Israel's committing in genocide and order and injunction and then
Speaker 1: it just is ignoring it doesn't really mean anything, or
Speaker 1: they could actually, you know, find on behalf of South
Speaker 1: Africa that it is plausible Israel is engaging in a
Speaker 1: genocide and it could actually sting, especially given the number
Speaker 1: of countries that have signed on to this, in countries
Speaker 1: like France that have said they'll abide by the ruling.
Speaker 1: We just don't know. So that's the latest, guys. That's
Speaker 1: what I've got for you, and I'll see you guys, doon.
Speaker 1: I watched some of South Africa's presentation this morning. We're
Speaker 1: recording this on Thursday, just so everybody knows. I understand
Speaker 1: you were able to watch most but not all of it.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I wanted to just say that's very unusual for me.
Speaker 7: I usually watch or read everything twice, and I want
Speaker 7: to apologize to that. It's just, you know, it's a
Speaker 7: part of my so to speak, scholarly bona fides. I
Speaker 7: had misunderstood it to be that their presentation would last
Speaker 7: two hours. In fact, according to the screen, it lasts
Speaker 7: four hours. I got through three hours before I had
Speaker 7: to do your interview for which we were scheduled, and
Speaker 7: immediately after this because.
Speaker 3: They have a whole lot of interview scheduled to day.
Speaker 7: I'm going to go back, go through the end to
Speaker 7: the end, and then tonight I'll watch it again.
Speaker 1: So the portion that I was able to watch this
Speaker 1: morning lay down what I would describe as a pretty
Speaker 1: compelling case, once again relying on a lot of un
Speaker 1: official statements and analyzes, also relying on the statements of
Speaker 1: various Israeli officials up to and including Bbnatan Yahoo himself
Speaker 1: of course is Prime Minister. I wanted to play for
Speaker 1: people just a snippet of part of the presentation talking
Speaker 1: about the level of mass death that has been inflicted
Speaker 1: on Palestinines in Gaza. Let's take a listen to that.
Speaker 8: In the first three weeks alone following seven October, Israel
Speaker 8: deployed six thousand bombs per week at least two hundred times.
Speaker 8: It has deployed two thousand pound bombs in southern areas
Speaker 8: of Palestine designated as safe. These bombs have also decimated
Speaker 8: the North, including refugee two thousand pound bombs are some
Speaker 8: of the biggest and most destructive bombs available. They are
Speaker 8: dropped by lethal stojets that are used to strike targets
Speaker 8: on the ground by one of the world's most resourced armies.
Speaker 8: Israel has killed an unparalleled and unprecedented number of civilians
Speaker 8: with the full knowledge of how many civilian lives each
Speaker 8: bomb will take.
Speaker 1: Doctor Finkelstein, what were some of the major takeaways for
Speaker 1: you from the portion of the South Africa presentation you
Speaker 1: were able to hear today.
Speaker 3: There were many reactions.
Speaker 7: There were personal reactions, and then there were professional scolarly reactions.
Speaker 7: I can leave the personal reactions for later if you
Speaker 7: care to hear them. You may want to focus on
Speaker 7: the scollarly side. First of all, we have to begin
Speaker 7: with the fact that South Africa was at a serious
Speaker 7: disadvantage in this case. The disadvantage is this South Africa
Speaker 7: presented an eighty four page complained to a brief to
Speaker 7: the ICJ, so we knew exactly what they were going
Speaker 7: to argue, and the presentations were elaborations on or reiterations
Speaker 7: of what was in that brief. But they don't know
Speaker 7: what Israel is going to argue because Israel did not
Speaker 7: present a brief, and so they had to speculate if
Speaker 7: this is going to be your then we say this.
Speaker 7: If that's going to be your argument, then we say that,
Speaker 7: So in effect, they had to squander a large amount
Speaker 7: of time trying to anticipate and preempt the argument which
Speaker 7: in fact South out excuse me, which in fact Israel
Speaker 7: may not make tomorrow. We don't know what, so they'll
Speaker 7: have the full time to make their case, whereas South
Speaker 7: Africa had to expend or squander a large amount of
Speaker 7: time trying to figure out what their argument might be
Speaker 7: and trying.
Speaker 3: To respond to it.
Speaker 7: So in my opinion, that was a significant disadvantage for
Speaker 7: South Africa.
Speaker 3: And I'm surprised. I don't know the protocol of the court.
Speaker 7: I was surprised to learn that you're not obliged to
Speaker 7: submit a complaint, a written complaint in events that you
Speaker 7: can just spring whatever arguments you want the next day.
Speaker 7: So having said that, I would say my prediction, because
Speaker 7: I did a program with my close friend and comrade
Speaker 7: Mueen Rabondi, my prediction last night was more.
Speaker 3: Or less born out.
Speaker 7: Everybody likes to claim they were right, and I have
Speaker 7: to be careful of that kind of hubris, but it
Speaker 7: was more or less born out. South Africa had two
Speaker 7: possible approaches. One approach would be to focus on the
Speaker 7: law and to say, legally, this is a genocide, and
Speaker 7: if you look at this text and that text and
Speaker 7: that text, it meets the textual requirement of a genocide.
Speaker 3: Another strategy was to.
Speaker 7: Pile on one layer after another, layer after another, layer
Speaker 7: after another layer of the horrors that Israel has inflicted
Speaker 7: on Gaza, such that whether it is or not technically
Speaker 7: a genocide, and whether it squeezes into that definition or not,
Speaker 7: it puts the court into an completely impossible position of saying, well, yes,
Speaker 7: what you describe is horrible, what you describe as terrible,
Speaker 7: what you describe as awful, what you describe as ghastly,
Speaker 7: what you describe as horrendous.
Speaker 3: But it's not a genocide.
Speaker 7: So I would say, if you look at the bulk
Speaker 7: of the proceedings, there were two lawyers, or two lawyers,
Speaker 7: John Dougaard and the second fellow whose name I can't
Speaker 7: quite not remember.
Speaker 3: They focused on the.
Speaker 7: Legal issues, and the legal issues are essentially number one.
Speaker 7: It will sound very technical to listeners whether this constitutes
Speaker 7: a dispute under international law, under the protocols of the ICJ,
Speaker 7: that is to say, whether you have standing to bring
Speaker 7: this case before the ICJ. And it's a very technical
Speaker 7: question what constitutes a dispute. So John Dugard, who I
Speaker 7: think it's fair to say is the most eminent, also
Speaker 7: the eldest of the representatives in South Africa, he handled
Speaker 7: the question of dispute because he anticipated that Israel might
Speaker 7: argue that this does not qualify as a dispute under
Speaker 7: the protocols of the ICJ, and therefore they should dismiss
Speaker 7: it out of hand. That's called the jurisdictional question. Does
Speaker 7: the court have jurisdiction over this particular issue? And another
Speaker 7: lawyer focused on the legal question. You have to prove that,
Speaker 7: since they're bringing the case under the Genocide Convention, you have.
Speaker 3: To prove that Israel's.
Speaker 7: Actions can only be traceable back to a genocidal intent.
Speaker 7: So let's say all of these actions are horrible, terrible, awful, horrendous.
Speaker 7: However they didn't the intent wasn't genocidal. Let's say the
Speaker 7: intent was to defeat the enemy, not to destroy in
Speaker 7: whole or in part a national, religious, racial, or ethnic group.
Speaker 7: You have to prove that the intent was genocidal.
Speaker 3: And there are several issues there.
Speaker 7: First of all, this is only a preliminary case, so
Speaker 7: all South Africa has to I don't want to say
Speaker 7: all although that term was constantly used, they think it
Speaker 7: did harm to the South African case. You have to
Speaker 7: prove there's a plausible case for genocide. You don't have
Speaker 7: to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt at this
Speaker 7: point in the What you have to prove is a
Speaker 7: plausible case. So he argued on that ground that our
Speaker 7: we just have it. He said, we merely have to
Speaker 7: make a plausible case. And the other argument is that
Speaker 7: you can commit war crimes, crimes against humanity, all sorts
Speaker 7: of crimes. They may not be genocide, but the crimes
Speaker 7: in the real world often overlap with genocide. So the
Speaker 7: fact that these might be war crimes, crimes against humanity,
Speaker 7: and so forth doesn't preclude that simultaneously they also might
Speaker 7: be genocide. So if Israel were to argue, Okay, we
Speaker 7: don't agree, but we're not going to dispute that your claim.
Speaker 7: We're not going to dispute your claim that war crimes
Speaker 7: were committed.
Speaker 3: That's still not genocide.
Speaker 7: And the South African argument was, well, the fact that
Speaker 7: they were war crimes or crimes against humanity doesn't preclude
Speaker 7: that they were simultaneously acts of genocide or genocide. So
Speaker 7: those were the two legal the main legal briefs. Oh,
Speaker 7: and there's the third. The third was by Vaughn low
Speaker 7: I have to say, you know, I know a lot
Speaker 7: of these personalities through correspondence. I know John Dugard personally.
Speaker 3: Vaughan Lowe.
Speaker 7: He argued another case before the ICJ, pertending to Israel,
Speaker 7: namely the wall that Israel was building in the West Bank.
Speaker 3: That was in July two thousand and four.
Speaker 7: And I was in correspondence with Vaughan Lowe back then
Speaker 7: and he had some really very kind words to say
Speaker 7: about something I wrote. And I had written extensively on
Speaker 7: the wall case, and it was you know, for me,
Speaker 7: here are two people who I had who are very
Speaker 7: kind to me.
Speaker 3: I'll just tell them for one half of.
Speaker 7: So John Dugard, who's the as I say, the most
Speaker 7: eminent and also the oldest of the representatives.
Speaker 3: For one of my books, Oh yeah, the Godsep book
Speaker 3: he wrote.
Speaker 7: Norman Finkelstein, probably the most serious scholar and the conflict
Speaker 7: in the Middle East, has written an excellent book.
Speaker 3: So to be told by.
Speaker 7: John Duguard that the most let's see, the most serious
Speaker 7: scholar on the whole subject was a comminent and lawn
Speaker 7: Law was equally generous in his praise. Now you might
Speaker 7: think this is me toothing my own horn, but it's
Speaker 7: so rare that I get praised by professional scholars. I
Speaker 7: got praised by people like yourself, But for people from
Speaker 7: within the academic world, it's a very rare event, you know,
Speaker 7: sort of like spotting a dodo bird.
Speaker 1: You've more than earned it.
Speaker 3: So I take a certain amount of pride in it.
Speaker 7: So one law also he stressed the legal side, and
Speaker 7: he made a very you know, he made a very
Speaker 7: strong point. He says, however horrendous October seventh might have been,
Speaker 7: and South Africa has acknowledged the horrendousness of October seventh,
Speaker 7: he made a point that nothing under international law can
Speaker 7: justify a genocide.
Speaker 3: So if you're going to come along and say how horrible,
Speaker 3: how terrible, how.
Speaker 7: Awful October seventh was, how it shocked and how it
Speaker 7: traumatized Israel, then we're not disputing that. But that can't
Speaker 7: justify a genocide, right, So I want to just stress again,
Speaker 7: as you could see from what I've already just said,
Speaker 7: they didn't know what the arguments are going to be
Speaker 7: by Israel, So they were trying to cover every possible contingency.
Speaker 3: Now Israel may uh may not make any of these arguments, uh.
Speaker 7: And then the other presentations were and with no uh,
Speaker 7: no attempt at disparage me at all.
Speaker 3: But you could say the other.
Speaker 7: Presentations that were I think about seven presentations the other
Speaker 7: presentations were. The other four were overwhelmingly emotive, but emotive
Speaker 7: in the sense, well, you know, it is a crime
Speaker 7: that shocks humanity. You know, that's how these crimes are described,
Speaker 7: A crime that shocks humanity, and shock is the emotive feeling.
Speaker 7: Shock is not a reasoned uh response, It's a response
Speaker 7: of your whole being, of your viscera, and of your mind,
Speaker 7: and of your soul and of your conscience.
Speaker 3: So there's soul, conscious mind which uh so which are emotive.
Speaker 7: They touched They go to feelings, and of course that's
Speaker 7: completely in my view, it's legitimate. And they did exactly
Speaker 7: what I expected they would do, and what anyone would
Speaker 7: expect they do. They simply layer upon layer upon layer
Speaker 7: upon layer of the horrors that have been inflicted on
Speaker 7: the people of Gaza.
Speaker 3: Or one gentleman he quoted a I guess it was
Speaker 3: either I think it was either one of the major
Speaker 3: humanetarian organizations.
Speaker 7: He said, in all of his life's experience, he had
Speaker 7: never seen something like this.
Speaker 3: And he said it has.
Speaker 7: Three characteristics, the size, the speed, and the size speed.
Speaker 7: And it'll company with three words that began with S
Speaker 7: size What make me scope? Yeah, I don't think it
Speaker 7: was gope, size, speed, and severity in terms of size
Speaker 7: size of the scope.
Speaker 3: But yours is a better word than size.
Speaker 7: Igish you had you scope, size, speed, and severity. He said,
Speaker 7: in his whole life, he had never experienced it. And
Speaker 7: then one of the other lawyers said, there are people
Speaker 7: in this in these organizations that go back to the
Speaker 7: killing fields in Cambodia.
Speaker 3: They go back seventy nine. You know, I'm old enough
Speaker 3: to go back that far. I remember it quite vividly.
Speaker 3: And he said, there are people who go back to.
Speaker 7: The killing fields of Cambodia and they've never seen any
Speaker 7: thing like this. And another person, one of the earlier presenters,
Speaker 7: who went through intent where you start to quote all
Speaker 7: the statements by the government officials, he made, you know,
Speaker 7: a perfectly valid point.
Speaker 3: He said, no country ever admits the genocide.
Speaker 7: They're always very cautious about what they say in public.
Speaker 7: And even if you read the Nazi statements, you know,
Speaker 7: during the genocide, there were kinds of what you might quote,
Speaker 7: allusions to allusions to what's happening. But remember the Nazi
Speaker 7: genocide occurred in the dark. Technically, the German people weren't
Speaker 7: supposed to know what's going on, let alone the world.
Speaker 3: And you will remember that when the first reports start
Speaker 3: to come.
Speaker 7: Out of the genocide, when the first reports of the
Speaker 7: Jewish genocides start to come out, there were some people
Speaker 7: who leaked out information, some emissaries who leaked out information.
Speaker 3: Most people didn't believe it.
Speaker 7: Even Jews couldn't believe what they were being told, which
Speaker 7: is another way of saying the genocide wasn't in the open.
Speaker 3: And as the person said, most of.
Speaker 7: The times, government leaders are very cautious about what they say.
Speaker 7: That even before there were the conventions, you know, making
Speaker 7: this illegal, you didn't say that.
Speaker 3: And he made the point that the Israelis have said
Speaker 3: it that every level.
Speaker 7: He made the point every level of government, every level
Speaker 7: of society, and throughout the military. So he saysh Prime
Speaker 7: Minister notta Home makes us standing about Amelek so then
Speaker 7: you could say, well, maybe he was just being figurative,
Speaker 7: maybe he was just being up local. But then in
Speaker 7: one of those rare moments in the hearings, they showed
Speaker 7: video footage, and they showed video footage of the soldiers
Speaker 7: repeating what Netsan Yahoo said and saying this is amelek.
Speaker 7: We're going to kill all of them, and they're dancing
Speaker 7: and they're very cheerful. That particular footage was targeting not
Speaker 7: Hamas but Hezbolah. So I assumed that was footage from
Speaker 7: the North Front, but the general idea that the soldiers
Speaker 7: had internalings what the senior government officials were saying. So
Speaker 7: you can't detach the statements at the upper tier from
Speaker 7: the actions at the lower tier.
Speaker 3: There's a straight arrow line. Uh.
Speaker 1: It was not really significant too. They also showed the
Speaker 1: soldiers talking about uninvolved there are no uninvol of civilians,
Speaker 1: which is something I believe President Hertzog had said. And
Speaker 1: this is again an anticipation of Israel saying, oh, we
Speaker 1: didn't mean those things. They're just sounding off. This is
Speaker 1: just populous.
Speaker 2: Rhetoric, multiple positions.
Speaker 1: One of the theories of their defense.
Speaker 2: That multiple politicians threatened nuking Gaza.
Speaker 1: That's on the record.
Speaker 3: Jim there was.
Speaker 7: Fun a junior member of the cabinet, he's the person
Speaker 7: in charge of the cabinet minister for antiquities. He said,
Speaker 7: that's nuke Gaza. And again they were anticipating because then
Speaker 7: he was demoted, and so they had to anticipate again
Speaker 7: and they said, well, he's still a standing member in
Speaker 7: the Kanesset. They had to figure out every possible defense
Speaker 7: that was going to be made and then tried to
Speaker 7: respond to it.
Speaker 3: But that presentation, you know, it's a just a brief
Speaker 3: bit of history.
Speaker 7: Israel during its previous operations in the past, was very
Speaker 7: free with its language.
Speaker 3: It said stuff like they're saying now.
Speaker 7: However, in after Operation cast Led, those statements came back
Speaker 7: to haunt them with what was called the Richard Goldstone Report.
Speaker 7: Richard Goldstone was also a South African, but unlike those
Speaker 7: represented here today, he was Jewish and he was a
Speaker 7: self identify I'm not using the term in term to disparagure.
Speaker 7: He was a self identified Zionist and he was appointed
Speaker 7: by the Human Rights Council to investigate crimes committed during
Speaker 7: Operation cast Led. Well, he composed this four hundred page report,
Speaker 7: and it was full of those statements made by the
Speaker 7: Israeli government. After that, Israel learned a lesson, don't make
Speaker 7: those statements because it might.
Speaker 3: Come back to you to haunt you in a legal proceeding.
Speaker 7: So in their next mowings of the Lawn Operation till
Speaker 7: of the Defense Operation Protected Edge, they didn't make those statements,
Speaker 7: at least they didn't make it in the numerical quantity
Speaker 7: as this time. So what happened October seventh that allowed
Speaker 7: for this explosion of statements.
Speaker 3: I mean, now no exaggeration.
Speaker 7: There are about a half dozen people who have composed
Speaker 7: these huge compendiums of just the statements made. One I
Speaker 7: think the most exhaustive is two by two young colleagues,
Speaker 7: Jamie stern Weiner and janniv Kogan. Jamie Sternwiner is half
Speaker 7: He's Jewish and half Israeli. Janif Coggin is Israeli and
Speaker 7: they produce it's called Fighting Amelek and Gaza, this huge compendium.
Speaker 3: But there are several others.
Speaker 7: You know, people send me and send me and sendy
Speaker 7: can you post my compendium?
Speaker 3: And can you post my compendium?
Speaker 7: And they're all very excellent so the question is what happened.
Speaker 7: They had that warning already and they had stopped, and
Speaker 7: now it just went berserved. I think it was basically
Speaker 7: because they had gone mad.
Speaker 3: They had gone you know.
Speaker 7: It was like the id coming out of them. There
Speaker 7: was no longer any.
Speaker 3: Control over that suppressed id. The hatred, the loathing.
Speaker 7: Of the people of Gaza, and that loathing and hatred
Speaker 7: was escalated by two factors in October seventh. No Number one,
Speaker 7: no question the magnitude of the crime. Don't find me
Speaker 7: diminishing it, no question, the magnitude of the crime. But
Speaker 7: the other thing was this vermin in Gaza, this human
Speaker 7: refuse in Gaza. They had outwitted the Israeli uber mentioned
Speaker 7: the superman. They had out smarted them Israel with it's
Speaker 7: a wanted intelligence capacities.
Speaker 3: It was a kind of what you might call a
Speaker 3: ject or.
Speaker 7: The image it projected was a James Bond writ large,
Speaker 7: that was the.
Speaker 3: Image you projected, projected.
Speaker 7: And then a long comes this vermin in Gaza, these
Speaker 7: umter mentions, these subhumans, and they had outsmarted them, out
Speaker 7: witted them, and reduced them to a state of humiliation.
Speaker 7: And what's even worse from the Israeli point of view
Speaker 7: had significantly contracted the image it projected to the world
Speaker 7: because everyone thought believed Israel is invincible. You don't have
Speaker 7: a military option against Israel. The only ones who disagreed
Speaker 7: were the Hesbela, in particular, the head of Hesbela, Sayah Israla.
Speaker 7: He kept saying, no, they're not so strong, don't fool yourself.
Speaker 7: And then he began to ridicule them, and he said,
Speaker 7: Israel's like a spider's web. You just blow on it
Speaker 7: and it disyntegrates. And nobody knew whether to take that
Speaker 7: literally or not. But suddenly, on October seventh, because I've
Speaker 7: talked and many obviously, I've talked many Arabs, many Palestinians,
Speaker 7: many Muslims, and the thought has suddenly sunk in.
Speaker 3: Maybe it's not as strong as it is made out
Speaker 3: to be.
Speaker 9: All Right, we are joined now again by my colleague
Speaker 9: over at the Intercept, Ken Clepenstein. Ken, thanks for being
Speaker 9: here today.
Speaker 3: It's good to be with you, guys.
Speaker 9: You've got a big story today, and we can put
Speaker 9: this element up. This is his scoop over at the Intercept.
Speaker 9: Walk us through what you found.
Speaker 10: So in November there was a document produced by the
Speaker 10: US Air Forces Middle East Combatant Command, and what it
Speaker 10: was essentially was a deployment order for intelligence officers to
Speaker 10: be sent to Israel and to help with the provision
Speaker 10: of intelligence to the Israelis. Now, I interviewed someone who
Speaker 10: was the exact same type of intelligence officer that they
Speaker 10: are signing Israel, and he said, this has to be
Speaker 10: about targeting, providing satellite intelligence to the Israelis, who have
Speaker 10: very good granular satellite information. But no one can hold
Speaker 10: a candle to the kind of satellite intelligence that the
Speaker 10: US government has for kind of being picture stuff that
Speaker 10: can help inform their picture of the battlefield in Gaza. Now,
Speaker 10: you know what's the What's why?
Speaker 3: Is this the problem?
Speaker 10: The Biden administration never disclosed this, And if you look
Speaker 10: at what the Biden administration has said publicly about support
Speaker 10: for Israel, they're in a very awkward position where they
Speaker 10: have to signal, you know, we love the Israelis, where
Speaker 10: you know, we support them entirely in this conflict, but
Speaker 10: they don't want to say how. And experts that we
Speaker 10: interviewed said that the reason for that is because it
Speaker 10: opens up the US government to not just political ability,
Speaker 10: but legal exposure as well. So you know, I've reported
Speaker 10: on this with the intercept in the past. The specific
Speaker 10: weapons systems we provided are not publicly disclosed. Unlike the
Speaker 10: war in Ukraine and the administration bullets what we're selling literally, yeah,
Speaker 10: you can go online and find it right now. They
Speaker 10: don't do that for these relies. They don't talk about
Speaker 10: the quantities of weapons. White House spokesperson John Kirby said
Speaker 10: in the past the reason for all of this is
Speaker 10: operational security. But again, compare this to the Ukrainians. Where's
Speaker 10: the operational security with that? Nobody cared, everyone disclosed it,
Speaker 10: they were fine, it didn't hurt the Ukrainians to do so.
Speaker 10: So there's really this double standard between those two client conflicts,
Speaker 10: and it's quite telling when you look at the Administration's
Speaker 10: posture between the two.
Speaker 11: Can you tell us a little bit more about the
Speaker 11: scale of this operation as you've reported it, you know what,
Speaker 11: exactly how big is this?
Speaker 10: The specific intelligence team that they sent is known for
Speaker 10: having a light footprint, the idea being that it's not
Speaker 10: going to create bureaucratic waves, not.
Speaker 3: Going to leak.
Speaker 10: When I spoke i interview on the record. In the story,
Speaker 10: someone who served in one of these units, and he
Speaker 10: described having provided intelligence to the Iraqis. I think it
Speaker 10: was as the war became quite unpopular in two thousand
Speaker 10: and seven, in two thousand and eight around that time.
Speaker 10: And the idea is that these teams are so small
Speaker 10: and can and are so agile that it's not going
Speaker 10: to create the kinds of uh, you know, discord within
Speaker 10: the agencies that that's sending a larger team might. But
Speaker 10: what's what's critical about all this is that when you
Speaker 10: look at the war in Gaza, it's an unusual war.
Speaker 10: The vast majority of it is being fought long distance
Speaker 10: with artillery air power, and that's exactly the kind of
Speaker 10: things that satellite intelligence of the sort that these Air
Speaker 10: Force intelligence officers would would would uh specialize in providing
Speaker 10: the Israelis are gonna are going to be able to
Speaker 10: give them.
Speaker 9: Now, it certainly doesn't look like there's been a whole
Speaker 9: lot of precision targeting, and we keep seeing stories about
Speaker 9: two thousand pound dumb bombs and and other dumb bombs
Speaker 9: getting getting dropped on on Gaza. Is it possible that
Speaker 9: the US sent these units over there and the IDF
Speaker 9: told them pound sand we're good.
Speaker 3: We don't.
Speaker 9: We don't actually need your help, Like, can we definitively
Speaker 9: link them here or do we have circumstantial evidence that
Speaker 9: they were ordered to head over there? And you would
Speaker 9: just assume that, you know, if you have this capacity
Speaker 9: at your disposal as the idea that you would take
Speaker 9: advantage of it.
Speaker 10: Well, these intelligence teams are kind of bilateral in nature,
Speaker 10: so they provide intelligence, but they're also getting intelligence too,
Speaker 10: and that's how they worked with regards to Iraq. How
Speaker 10: much we know about what the Israelis accepted, I mean,
Speaker 10: the edmind has been very open about that. Yes, we
Speaker 10: are providing intelligence, but they've been very careful to say
Speaker 10: but it's only about hostage rescue. And so that's where
Speaker 10: this story moves the needle away from hostage rescue toward
Speaker 10: I mean, when you're talking targeting, that's a very different
Speaker 10: kind of operation. That's something the administration is never acknowledged.
Speaker 10: So certainly the Israelis are accepting some form of help
Speaker 10: in terms of the hostage response. There was a crash
Speaker 10: I think of an ospray and.
Speaker 3: Off the coast a Turkey or something.
Speaker 10: Yeah, that's right, and that revealed that we had a
Speaker 10: Seal team in country working on the hostage rescue response.
Speaker 10: So there's a big kind of secret squirrel presence within
Speaker 10: country that we only have some hints of it. In
Speaker 10: another case, the White House posted a picture they forgot
Speaker 10: to redact the bass of the Jaysok operators, so now
Speaker 10: we know Jaysak is there too. So certainly there's a
Speaker 10: footprint and document. The story is based on a Foyd document.
Speaker 10: These kind of provide us some glimpse into what exactly
Speaker 10: is going on, because again the administration is not being
Speaker 10: forthcoming about it.
Speaker 11: And the other question I have is if you could
Speaker 11: talk a little bit more about the legal liabilities we
Speaker 11: did learn, I mean, unsurprisingly something about this in Ukraine
Speaker 11: as well, you know, like six months unto the wars,
Speaker 11: and we wed a similar kind of footprint of people,
Speaker 11: light footprint of people in Kiev. So the legal liability
Speaker 11: is there. But then there's also the idea of the
Speaker 11: political liability if somebody is killed in action that creates
Speaker 11: if an American and a member of the American military
Speaker 11: American intelligence community is harmed, that can also completely change
Speaker 11: the dynamic of a hot conflict like this.
Speaker 10: Yeah, the administrations kind of boxed itself box itself in
Speaker 10: because from the beginning Biden has said we do not
Speaker 10: have boots on the ground. He's tried to adhere to that.
Speaker 10: But the problem is intelligence. Since it doesn't operate under
Speaker 10: the same legal classification as does traditional boots on the ground,
Speaker 10: you can you can technically accurately say that intelligence is
Speaker 10: not it operates under a different title authority.
Speaker 9: Because they're not operating in Gaza like this, could this
Speaker 9: even be happening in the United States?
Speaker 10: We know that they are, the Air Force is conducting
Speaker 10: drones in Gaza. You're right that they're not or as
Speaker 10: far as we know, they're not on the ground, I
Speaker 10: mean JAYSOK and some of these special operations units, all right,
Speaker 10: oh right, No, definitely we have a footprint in Gaza.
Speaker 10: And what's interesting with that that drone presence that probably
Speaker 10: also is working with the Air Force. That is the
Speaker 10: first time the US military has ever operated in Gaza.
Speaker 10: So this is a huge sea change from past conduct.
Speaker 9: And the units themselves are they working both in the
Speaker 9: United States and over in Do they have to travel
Speaker 9: to Israel?
Speaker 3: You have to do this court It.
Speaker 10: Was literally a travel order describing where the lodgings are
Speaker 10: going to be I think it was in Tel Aviv,
Speaker 10: so they're physically in Israel. In addition to that, one
Speaker 10: very telling uh part of the FOID document was do
Speaker 10: not wear your uniform on the plane. We're in a
Speaker 10: civilian like what.
Speaker 9: If you want to board first though, I mean, come on,
Speaker 9: kind of gives. So they said don't don't wear your
Speaker 9: uniform on your way over to Tel Aviv. Yeah, because
Speaker 9: that you're you're you're sitting in the airport and your
Speaker 9: your flight is bound for Tel Aviv and you look
Speaker 9: over and you see a bunch of active duty uh,
Speaker 9: you know, military person us military personality be like, oh.
Speaker 10: It's reflective of how it's a very subtle operation. It's
Speaker 10: so ironic because they have to go out and say
Speaker 10: I'm overflowing with love for the Israel and we support
Speaker 10: them in everything, and it's like, but we can't say
Speaker 10: anything about how, you know.
Speaker 9: Yeah, fascinating stuff. Thank you, good reporting, Thanks.
Speaker 3: For joining us.
Speaker 11: Yeah, thank you Ken.
Speaker 3: Thanks guys,