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 3: Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 3: But enough with that, let's get to the show.
Speaker 1: Huge developments in the Red Sea. You guys will recall
Speaker 1: that the Huthis have been basically blocking traffic through the
Speaker 1: Red Sea. The US has formed this sort of very
Speaker 1: weak coalition and a lot of countries haven't wanted to
Speaker 1: be involved with it. But the UK is standing strong
Speaker 1: alongside of US, and so the US and British Naval
Speaker 1: Force is actually shot down twenty one drones and missiles
Speaker 1: fired by Yemen based hoo Thies on Tuesday towards the
Speaker 1: southern Red Sea. We have the scent calm announcement here.
Speaker 1: We can put this up on the screen, so hooth
Speaker 1: the attack on international show shipping, they say. On January ninth,
Speaker 1: at approximately nine to fifteen pm local time, Iranian backted
Speaker 1: hoo Thie's launched a complex attack of Iranian designed one
Speaker 1: way attack UAV's, anti ship cruise missiles and an anti
Speaker 1: ship ballistic missile from Houthy controlled areas of Yemen into
Speaker 1: the southern Red Sea towards international shipping lanes where dozens
Speaker 1: of merchant vessels were transitting. Eighteen OWA UAVs, two anti
Speaker 1: ship cruise missiles and one anti ship ballistic missile were
Speaker 1: shot down by a combined effort of FA eighteen's from
Speaker 1: USS to whit D Eisenhower, USS Gravely, USS Laboon, USS Mason,
Speaker 1: and the UK's HMS Diamond. This is the twenty sixth
Speaker 1: Hoothy attack on commercial shipping lanes in the Red Sea
Speaker 1: since November nineteenth. There were no injuries or damage reported.
Speaker 1: On January three, fourteen countries, including the US, issued a
Speaker 1: joint statement stating the Houthis will bear the responsibility for
Speaker 1: the consequences should they continue to threaten lives, the global economy,
Speaker 1: or the free flow of commerce in the region's critical waterways.
Speaker 1: So that is a bit of a threat there at
Speaker 1: the end. In terms of what the Huthis are saying,
Speaker 1: they said that in a statement that they attacked an
Speaker 1: American ship as part of a quote preliminary response to
Speaker 1: the US shooting down three of its ships on December
Speaker 1: thirty one. In that incident, we killed ten people. The
Speaker 1: Houthis carried out a joint military operation with a large
Speaker 1: number of ballistic and naval missiles and drones against the
Speaker 1: US ship it accused of providing support to Israel. They
Speaker 1: go on to say the many armed forces continue to
Speaker 1: prevent Israeli ships or those heading to the ports of
Speaker 1: Occupied Palestine from navigating in the Arabian and Red Seas
Speaker 1: until the aggression stops in the siege of our steadfast
Speaker 1: brothers in the Gaza Strip is lifted. So just making
Speaker 1: it very clear, this is tied to what is happening
Speaker 1: in the Gaza Strip.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and unfortunately, though the escalization ladder continues to climb,
Speaker 2: a lot of these Israeli ships are not actually transitting,
Speaker 2: you know, most of the cargo at this point, it
Speaker 2: seems in some ninety percent has been redirected around the
Speaker 2: Horn of Africa. The reason that the UK is involved
Speaker 2: here is actually goes back to a lot of their
Speaker 2: historical dominance colonialism in the region and their historical pledge
Speaker 2: to protect some of this on top of the US
Speaker 2: Mission Navy specifically in order to protect the free flows
Speaker 2: of commerce.
Speaker 3: The big problem here, and we.
Speaker 2: Can go ahead and as we saw it with the
Speaker 2: British Defense Secretary, is that by telegraphing that we will
Speaker 2: be bombing yemen Y territory, now we are going right
Speaker 2: back to the original problem where look, I have no
Speaker 2: issue bombing who these if they're going to fire on
Speaker 2: a US flag ship. The problem just comes back to
Speaker 2: will this actually stop the bombing? And what we've seen
Speaker 2: consistently through the Houthi campaign is that Saudi Arabia can drop,
Speaker 2: you know, the entire arsenal that the US supplied them
Speaker 2: with pretty sophisticated military, who these have no air power,
Speaker 2: but they were still capable of amassing all of these
Speaker 2: ballistic missiles which were you know, really threatened Saudi territory
Speaker 2: in the Saudi military for quite some time, and it
Speaker 2: would only more likely lead to some sort of escalation
Speaker 2: in the waters in the Red Sea, which would only
Speaker 2: dramatically increase the insurance rates, the price of commerce. I mean,
Speaker 2: we're really stuck between a rock and a hard place
Speaker 2: because clearly the military.
Speaker 3: Action is tied to what's happening in Gaza.
Speaker 2: Now we say we're just not going to you know,
Speaker 2: we're not going to do anything about what's happening in Gaza.
Speaker 2: So now we're tied into this coalition. The real problem
Speaker 2: I thought with the coalition is that it's not just
Speaker 2: the US and the UK, which almost goes back to
Speaker 2: like some Iraq war thing. It's like France and all
Speaker 2: of these other countries which have just as much of
Speaker 2: an incentive in order to defend commerce on the high seas.
Speaker 2: They don't want to join us in a military I mean, honestly, Crystal,
Speaker 2: we had more military support in our Anti Isis coalition
Speaker 2: than we do want to something like this is extraordinary
Speaker 2: because frankly, there's a way more at stake whenever it
Speaker 2: comes to this than whatever the hell was going on
Speaker 2: in Syria at the times. Honestly, from a military perspective,
Speaker 2: strategic this has been a disaster for US.
Speaker 1: There is essentially no one in the region who has
Speaker 1: joined US. Bachering is the only regional ally that is
Speaker 1: publicly involved. That's number one. Number two. Some of the
Speaker 1: countries that originally said all right, will help you ount
Speaker 1: back down and did not want to be associated with
Speaker 1: this in any regard Number three, I will not be
Speaker 1: the first to point out that the US seems to
Speaker 1: be much more concerned about container shipping than they are
Speaker 1: about the Palestinian babies being massacred in the Gaza strip.
Speaker 1: And number four, yes, they are in a between a
Speaker 1: rock and hard places. You put at Sager. It is
Speaker 1: a position completely of their own making. So, as we
Speaker 1: covered previously in the week, there's all these leaks from
Speaker 1: the defense establishment and the intelligence establishment freaking out about
Speaker 1: the possibility of a regional war and warning that especially
Speaker 1: the escalation with the Huthis, but in particular the escalation
Speaker 1: in Lebanon, which we're going to talk about in just
Speaker 1: a moment, that this does not end in a good
Speaker 1: place for the US period. And yet, nowhere in this
Speaker 1: coverage does it suggest the very obvious answer that all
Speaker 1: of these hostilities go away overnight if you have a ceasefire,
Speaker 1: and that the US has a lot of say in
Speaker 1: whether or not there is a ceasefire. We know when
Speaker 1: there was even a temple ceasefire, and this is a
Speaker 1: point that doctor Treet de Parsi has been making. We
Speaker 1: know that this is the case because these attacks slowed
Speaker 1: in some instances completely stopped during that period of the
Speaker 1: temporary ceasefire. So while they're wing there, Oh my god,
Speaker 1: what do we do and how do we deal with this?
Speaker 1: And we don't have this coalition is in backing us,
Speaker 1: and maybe we've got to hit Yemen directly, they leave
Speaker 1: off the table the very obvious answer to avoiding a
Speaker 1: gigantic war that inevitably pulls US into it, which is
Speaker 1: to push Israel for a ceasefire using our immense leverage
Speaker 1: in the region. So I just mentioned we also have
Speaker 1: huge escalation. I mean, at this point you can't say, like, oh,
Speaker 1: it might be a multiple front war. The Israelis themselves
Speaker 1: are saying they're at fighting a seven front war and
Speaker 1: taking action on six of those fronts. So they are
Speaker 1: warning these Raelis are now warning hospitals in Israel to
Speaker 1: brace for casualties as a result of the escalation between
Speaker 1: Israel and Hesbela and southern Lebanon. Let's take a listen
Speaker 1: to that.
Speaker 4: Put this in its proper proportion. Israeli hospitals have and
Speaker 4: working with the idea of Home Front Command to drill
Speaker 4: these scenarios for years. So the protocol of drilling. It
Speaker 4: is not new and they have to be ready for
Speaker 4: that kind of scenario because at any time we could
Speaker 4: have entered into a full scale war situation with Kasabala.
Speaker 4: The timing is of course relevant because we are facing
Speaker 4: continuous exchanges of fire with Kibella, and the scenario of
Speaker 4: this escalating into a much larger conflict is very much
Speaker 4: on the table.
Speaker 3: It's possible.
Speaker 4: So we don't know what the breaking point is, Okay,
Speaker 4: we have to be honest and say we don't know
Speaker 4: when that moment will come. When we're going from low
Speaker 4: intensity to high intensity, when it's you know, when it's
Speaker 4: dozens of rockets or drones to thousands Kisbala. Can you know,
Speaker 4: hit northern Israel with ten thousand rockets a day in
Speaker 4: a full scale war situation. It can hit central Israel
Speaker 4: with at least a thousand rockets a day in a
Speaker 4: full scale war situation. We don't know when or if
Speaker 4: that moment will come, and it's absolutely the duty of
Speaker 4: hospitals and emergency responders and the idea of Home Front
Speaker 4: comme man to make sure that if it does come,
Speaker 4: that they're ready.
Speaker 1: Net Nyiaho of course, has every incentive to expand this war,
Speaker 1: to keep the war going indefinitely, to try to have
Speaker 1: something that he can bring back to the Israeli people
Speaker 1: that he can call a quote unquote victory, especially as
Speaker 1: he comes under increasing pressure within his own coalition and
Speaker 1: also from the Israeli public. And we have one more,
Speaker 1: yet another warning from a prominent official. Put this up
Speaker 1: on the screen. This is War Cabinet member Benny Gantz,
Speaker 1: who is saying the Lebanese government should think about whether
Speaker 1: they are Iran's front shield. If Heswilla continues, we will
Speaker 1: act in southern Lebanon as we act in the northern
Speaker 1: Gaza strip. This is not a threat to Lebanon. It
Speaker 1: is a promise to the residents of the north. And
Speaker 1: you know, there's a lot of language to Sager that
Speaker 1: has made it very clear that one of the intentional
Speaker 1: goals of the action of the you know, assault on
Speaker 1: Gaza is not this quote unquote hunt for Hamas, but
Speaker 1: it's to show that they are so brutal to act
Speaker 1: as a deterrent to groups like Kazbola. And so that's
Speaker 1: why from the beginning you've had this language of like, hey,
Speaker 1: we could turn Beirut into Gaza City. We could copy
Speaker 1: paste what we did in Gaza to Lebanon. That is
Speaker 1: part of the strategy here is to be as destructive
Speaker 1: and as horrifying as possible, so that you know, groups
Speaker 1: like Hezbola and the Lebanese people react and horror to
Speaker 1: the idea that that could be done to them as well.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, you know, if you look through history,
Speaker 2: it's not exactly a novel military strategy certainly has worked,
Speaker 2: I guess in the past. The problem that they have
Speaker 2: is that Hesbola is not hamas you know, the people,
Speaker 2: as he even lays out in there, got thousand rockets
Speaker 2: a day.
Speaker 3: Rockets are the least of their problems.
Speaker 2: They've got actual missiles that would have to deal with
Speaker 2: these are you know, missile defense systems and others. Already,
Speaker 2: what's happening in the Red Sea that we originally opened
Speaker 2: with crystal is a far more technologically advanced war than
Speaker 2: what's currently happening in Gaza Gazla is actually much more
Speaker 2: of a you know, older style of conflict. Yes, they
Speaker 2: have twenty first twenty first century technology, but only on
Speaker 2: one side in Hesbola, where that's not what we're talking
Speaker 2: about at all. In some military analysts and others that
Speaker 2: I've looked at, including people who are pro Israel, people
Speaker 2: who are warning. Jonathan Schanzer we played on our Tuesday
Speaker 2: show he would like in the Hesbula military arsenal to
Speaker 2: that of a small European nation. So we need to
Speaker 2: understand that the parity of military capabilities and technology is
Speaker 2: so much higher. That was underscored on our Monday show
Speaker 2: when one hundred Idea of soldiers were wounded in a
Speaker 2: single day, the vast majority of them by Hesbala. So
Speaker 2: that shows us that, you know, we can have no
Speaker 2: real hot war, but the mere anti tank missiles that
Speaker 2: they have and have been exchanging fire with the Idea
Speaker 2: have been enormously destructive. So the overall impact right now
Speaker 2: on global shipping, on the global situation and others is
Speaker 2: a level of immense charity, and it also shows us
Speaker 2: one of the warnings, you know, that there's.
Speaker 3: Been a lot of triumphalism.
Speaker 2: People have said, oh see, you know, nothing is emerged
Speaker 2: into a full blown war. We are only three months
Speaker 2: removed from October seventh, and we're just not that far,
Speaker 2: frankly into this conflict. Part of the reason why I've
Speaker 2: we're so critical I guess in the beginning is because
Speaker 2: it was so clear I would say October what twentieth
Speaker 2: or so on from the ground invasion. I'm like, okay,
Speaker 2: you have just now committed the same mistakes as Iraq.
Speaker 2: It took us nine months to a year for us
Speaker 2: to reap the reward of our invasion. You know, it
Speaker 2: took a long time before we really start to see
Speaker 2: the massive strategic follow I would.
Speaker 3: Honestly argue that most of what we're seeing today.
Speaker 2: Is continuing of that, and that's twenty years or so
Speaker 2: after they're removed. So when we think about, you know,
Speaker 2: what the timescale is here and what they have opened
Speaker 2: themselves up to, this is just the you know, the
Speaker 2: beginning of the beginning. We really have no idea what
Speaker 2: the diplomatic situation, the military situation is. So I think
Speaker 2: it is a very very dangerous moment here for the
Speaker 2: United States, specifically with regard to the global shipping standard,
Speaker 2: because what we can see there is that that has
Speaker 2: the most potential to massively change and impact the overall
Speaker 2: US economy. And look, let's I mean, you said, you know,
Speaker 2: care more about shipping. I mean, to be honest, we
Speaker 2: should care more about shipping, because that's what's going to
Speaker 2: affect us directly in our lives, that would actually massively
Speaker 2: impact the overall US economy, the glow Mobal situation, And
Speaker 2: that's what makes people care. That's what makes people be like, hey,
Speaker 2: what is going on here? Why can't I get extra
Speaker 2: y or z? It seems from the grocery store.
Speaker 1: Letting people care about the images of horror that they
Speaker 1: see coming out above Palestine. It's about what actually funded
Speaker 1: by our taxpayer dollars. And if you don't care about that,
Speaker 1: you might care about the fact that you are radicalizing
Speaker 1: millions of people to absolutely hate the United States of
Speaker 1: America because of these thousand pound bombs that.
Speaker 2: Are being dropped on But these are not concepts which
Speaker 2: directly affect us in the moment.
Speaker 3: What I'm saying is that you know, in generally it
Speaker 3: does well.
Speaker 1: There are lots of people who are very affected by it,
Speaker 1: but it's not the.
Speaker 2: Vast majority of the American public, all right, So the
Speaker 2: vast majority of the American public is definitely going to
Speaker 2: carry if the majority.
Speaker 1: Of the American public wants the cease fire, but not
Speaker 1: exactly this reason, because they don't want to be party
Speaker 1: to atrocities.
Speaker 2: There are things that I want. Then there are also
Speaker 2: the things that of the there are one hundred things
Speaker 2: that I want, there's maybe one that I'm going to
Speaker 2: act the most on right of that one. That's how
Speaker 2: most people think in terms of priorities. There are a
Speaker 2: lot of things on your priority list. Yes, majority of
Speaker 2: Americans want to sease fire. I don't disagree with you
Speaker 2: at all. But if you were to look, let's say,
Speaker 2: at pollium, what is most important to you, it's not
Speaker 2: even going to be what I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't If you ask people, do you care more
Speaker 1: about the babies who are being bombed in the Gaza
Speaker 1: strip or shipping lanes in the Red Sea right now?
Speaker 1: What do you think they're going to want?
Speaker 2: I would flip it and I'd say, do you care
Speaker 2: more about what you're paying, you know, at the grocery
Speaker 2: store for oil and for that other thing, or for
Speaker 2: whatever's going on in a third world conflict which doesn't
Speaker 2: affect you.
Speaker 3: I would absolutely say number one. I don't think I'm
Speaker 3: alone in that. I mean, and I think that bears
Speaker 3: out the number of.
Speaker 1: People who have said that foreign affairs is their top
Speaker 1: priority in this coming election is effectively unprecedented right now
Speaker 1: because of the concern of what's being done in the
Speaker 1: Gaza Strip.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but it's not Again, the economy is still going
Speaker 2: to be number one. I mean, I'm just all to
Speaker 2: what is actually impactful.
Speaker 1: If you actually, if your number one concern is the frickin'
Speaker 1: shipping lanes, then there's a very clear answer here that
Speaker 1: dovetails alongside the concern over the babies who are being
Speaker 1: massacred in the Gaza Strip, and that's a ceasefire, and
Speaker 1: that's left out of our government's calculation. You know, there
Speaker 1: was reporting that people in the Biden ministry like they
Speaker 1: don't even try to make this case to Joe Biden
Speaker 1: because he's basically so obstinately against it, period, end of story,
Speaker 1: that he's willing to risk a massive war in order
Speaker 1: to unconditionally support Israel. It's left out of the media
Speaker 1: context when these articles are written about like, oh my god,
Speaker 1: they don't know what to do and this is so
Speaker 1: bad and the military is really concerned about what's going
Speaker 1: to happen. That context is left out completely. The Hoothi's
Speaker 1: have put on statement saying listen, we're upholding our part
Speaker 1: of the Genocide Convention and our obligation to not only
Speaker 1: not participate in genocide, which of the US is doing
Speaker 1: right now, but to try to prevent it. So that's
Speaker 1: the big picture here that I don't want to get lost,
Speaker 1: is that all of these various concerns, which are all important,
Speaker 1: I don't want to diminish the costs that could escalate
Speaker 1: as a result of the Hoothy's actions here, All of
Speaker 1: these various concerns are solved by having a ceasefire in
Speaker 1: the Gaza.
Speaker 3: Stress.
Speaker 2: No, I don't think I actually don't disagree with anything
Speaker 2: that you said at all. I'm more talking about in
Speaker 2: terms of how it would impact overall US politics, and
Speaker 2: so I don't disagree in terms of our obfiscation of
Speaker 2: the way that we think and talk about the conflict
Speaker 2: and about our overall leverage of Israel.
Speaker 3: Actually I'm totally in agreement, you know.
Speaker 2: If anything, what we have signed ourselves up for is
Speaker 2: both unconditional support for Israel and unconditional bearing of all
Speaker 2: of the costs, which is what drives me the most
Speaker 2: insane about the entire US relationship with Israeli, a pittily
Speaker 2: little country out in the middle of nowhere that somehow
Speaker 2: all of US politics has to evolve around, including the
Speaker 2: US military, which is nuts, you know, when we think
Speaker 2: about it from.
Speaker 3: A strategic position.
Speaker 2: If anything, you could make a case that Ukraine matters,
Speaker 2: and I don't even think that matters more than Israel.
Speaker 2: And I don't even think Ukraine matters all that much
Speaker 2: to overall US national security. So it's a difference in perspective,
Speaker 2: I think, the two ways that we're looking at it,
Speaker 2: But regardless, you generally arrive at the same conclusion, which
Speaker 2: is that the US is not impacting the situation in
Speaker 2: Israel enough, both to its own benefit. There are humanitarian
Speaker 2: side effects to that as well. But the problem that
Speaker 2: I see right now is that we don't with Biden
Speaker 2: in particular, and a lot of the overall US establishments,
Speaker 2: they're so whole still committed that they have not even
Speaker 2: allowed themselves to look outside of whatever was, you know,
Speaker 2: exists within the overton window of pre October seventh. They're
Speaker 2: not updating their thinking and their language in this overall
Speaker 2: strategic situation. Frankly, you see the same, you know, in
Speaker 2: terms of thinking about Ukraine. It's like everybody thinks it's
Speaker 2: like nineteen seventy two in the middle of the Cold Wars, Like, no,
Speaker 2: we're living in a totally different global environment. And I think,
Speaker 2: you know, post October seventh, this is something that we're
Speaker 2: probably about to get to with the genocide trial happening
Speaker 2: right now at the ICJ, we need to really prepare
Speaker 2: ourselves for the fact that Israel is not the Israeli before.
Speaker 2: Maybe they're okay with that, but I don't think a
Speaker 2: lot of people in that country have grappled with that.
Speaker 3: And same with this country in terms of our relationship
Speaker 3: with Joe.
Speaker 1: Biden still thinks it's like nineteen seventies, that is Reel
Speaker 1: Goldenmeyer's Prime Minister. And I mean, in some ways, as
Speaker 1: we've said before, and as Darryl Cooper always points out,
Speaker 1: like the right wingers like Netanyahu and Smotrich and Ben Gavie,
Speaker 1: they're the more honest narrators of what Israel actually is
Speaker 1: and what the goals really are. So there is a
Speaker 1: difference obviously between Netanyahu and previous prime ministers who are
Speaker 1: actually interested in the Oslo piece process, etc. But a
Speaker 1: lot of the sort of bedrock direction of Israel has
Speaker 1: not really changed. It's just that the US political class,
Speaker 1: and especially Joe Biden, has constructed some fantasy Israel that
Speaker 1: has really never existed in his head and certainly does
Speaker 1: not exist today. So let's move on to the ICJ
Speaker 1: hearings which started this morning. So let me explain a
Speaker 1: little bit of how this is going to work in
Speaker 1: a little bit of the context and backstory here. In fact,
Speaker 1: if we can put up the writer's tear sheet first here, guys,
Speaker 1: that give some of the contexts, and then I'll get
Speaker 1: to a little bit of playing some of the sound
Speaker 1: from the hearing. So this is via Haretz Reuter's reports
Speaker 1: at South Africa and Israel exchanging allegations on the eve
Speaker 1: of hearings at the UN's Top Court, which will hear
Speaker 1: South Africa's claim that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians
Speaker 1: in the Gaza War. They're going to hold season on
Speaker 1: Thursday and Friday in a case brought in late December,
Speaker 1: accusing Israel failing to uphold its obligations under the nineteen
Speaker 1: forty eight Genocide Convention. Okay, on the South African side,
Speaker 1: they are saying, as a people who once tasted the
Speaker 1: bitter fruits of dispossession, discrimination, racism and state sponsored violence.
Speaker 1: We are clear that we will stand on the right
Speaker 1: side of history. And Israeli government spokesperson responded that the
Speaker 1: State of Israel will appear before the ICJ to dispel
Speaker 1: South Africa's absurd blood libel as pretoria gives political and
Speaker 1: legal cover to the Hamas rapist regime. There will be
Speaker 1: a panel of seventeen judges, including South Africa and Israel
Speaker 1: can both appoint one judge themselves. Those are called ad
Speaker 1: hoc justices, and each judge represents a different nation. Actually,
Speaker 1: the US judge is sort of leading the proceedings and
Speaker 1: a ruling on the provisional measures could be expected later
Speaker 1: this month. So what they're arguing right now is not
Speaker 1: the merits of the case, trying to meet a legal
Speaker 1: standard of it is plausible that genocide is being committed here,
Speaker 1: that it's plausible, And South Africa is pushing for effectively
Speaker 1: an injunction where the ICJ would order Israel to cease
Speaker 1: all activities that are furthering the harm of the Palestinian people. Now,
Speaker 1: Israel is a signatory to the Genocide Convention. The US
Speaker 1: as a signatory to the Genocide Convention, and although our
Speaker 1: complicity here won't be a center of these hearings. You know,
Speaker 1: they're clear follow on ramifications for us since we are
Speaker 1: the ones supplying Israel with these bumps, so we are
Speaker 1: not an uninvolved party here. This morning you had South
Speaker 1: Africa presenting their side of the case. I did a
Speaker 1: breakdown over the weekend of the eighty four page filing
Speaker 1: that they had submitted to the court giving their analysis
Speaker 1: of both the actions that are being taken that they
Speaker 1: say are consistent with violation of the Genocide Convention, as
Speaker 1: well as statements from various minister's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanya,
Speaker 1: who various defense ministers as well, and soldiers rank and
Speaker 1: file soldiers on the ground that they say demonstrate genocidal
Speaker 1: intent as well. So that's sort of the backstory here.
Speaker 1: This morning we got to hear South Africa's case that
Speaker 1: they are making for this injunction. Let's take a listen
Speaker 1: to a little bit of that.
Speaker 5: In the first three weeks alone following seven October, Israel
Speaker 5: deployed six thousand bombs per week at least two hundred times.
Speaker 5: It has deployed two thousand pound bombs in southern areas
Speaker 5: of Palestine, designated as safe. These bombs have also decimated
Speaker 5: the North, including refugee camps.
Speaker 6: Two thousand pound bombs are some of the biggest and
Speaker 6: most destructive bombs available. They are dropped by lethal fighter
Speaker 6: jets that I used to strike targets on the ground,
Speaker 6: by one of the world's most resourced armies. Israel has
Speaker 6: killed and unparalleled and unprecedented number of civilians with the
Speaker 6: full knowledge of how many civilian lives each bomb will take.
Speaker 1: So Saga actually watched these hearings this morning. They had
Speaker 1: a South Africa had a number of different individuals making
Speaker 1: the case. Israel make their case in defense of these
Speaker 1: allegations tomorrow, so I'll make sure to tune into that
Speaker 1: as well, so we can break that down for you too.
Speaker 1: Many of the numbers, statistics, the facts about the percentage
Speaker 1: of the killings that are women and children, the amount
Speaker 1: of destruction, the imposition of a siege which has led
Speaker 1: to hunger, starvation conditions, and also the lack of medical supplies,
Speaker 1: the complete collapse of the healthcare system. We've covered a
Speaker 1: lot of this extensively on the show, so you'll be
Speaker 1: familiar with a lot of the arguments that are laid
Speaker 1: out here. They also spent quite a bit of time.
Speaker 1: I'm talking about the various statements that, as I mentioned before,
Speaker 1: they claim establish intent. They spent in particular a lot
Speaker 1: of time on comments that we played at the beginning
Speaker 1: of the war when Netnahu himself compared the Palestinians to Amelech,
Speaker 1: biblical foes of Israel, who they are charged with destroying
Speaker 1: in their entirety, including the camel, including the oxen, including
Speaker 1: the suckling, et cetera, et cetera. And then they showed
Speaker 1: how soldiers on the ground took these comments seriously, and
Speaker 1: we are told that part of Israel's defense will be
Speaker 1: all these comments. People are just popping off. They don't
Speaker 1: really mean it, you know, this is just populous rhetoric
Speaker 1: that doesn't really mean. They don't really mean what they're saying.
Speaker 1: And yet they showed soldiers who are on the ground
Speaker 1: repeating the words of net Yahoo and then using that
Speaker 1: justification to enact and celebrate war crimes that they're committing
Speaker 1: they're on the ground. So I thought that connection was
Speaker 1: sort of novel in some thing, that a case that
Speaker 1: I hadn't seen fully flushed down before.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, when I was reading through. So the
Speaker 2: Article two of the Convention. I know you went through this,
Speaker 2: but the Article two parts C is deliberately inflicting on
Speaker 2: the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
Speaker 2: physical destruction in.
Speaker 3: Whole or in part.
Speaker 2: The biggest problem they have is actually a lot of
Speaker 2: this is really fascinating to think because so many turning
Speaker 2: points happened from October seven prior to the actual invasion
Speaker 2: and the implication in the implication of putting on that
Speaker 2: siege of all of Gaza and eventually then bargaining about
Speaker 2: right of return for people and exchange for hostages. That
Speaker 2: seems to me like the biggest problem that they're going
Speaker 2: to have. We should also, though, be honest here in
Speaker 2: terms of what the ICJ and all that implication is.
Speaker 2: They have no enforcement mechanism. So this is the bigger
Speaker 2: problem with the entire United Nations. It's like I was
Speaker 2: reading that in two thousand and four, the ICJ said
Speaker 2: that the offence between Gaza and Israel needs to be
Speaker 2: taken down.
Speaker 3: Okay, well it's still up. Nobody can do anything about that.
Speaker 2: To a certain extent, you know, the UN and international
Speaker 2: law and all that other stuff is fake because it
Speaker 2: all comes down to the enforcement. But on another extent,
Speaker 2: in the rules based technical international order, at least allegedly,
Speaker 2: what matters more is becoming a pariah state and losing
Speaker 2: your overall trading relationships.
Speaker 3: And this is something you and I were talking about
Speaker 3: a little bit before.
Speaker 2: But if you do look at the largest top fifteen
Speaker 2: trade partners of Israel, number one is the United States,
Speaker 2: but number two is Germany, Number two, number five or
Speaker 2: whatever is France. Huge number of G seven nations in there,
Speaker 2: and the rest of the G seven, they're very much
Speaker 2: more likely to take something like this seriously, specifically because
Speaker 2: if you think about it, the European Union and many
Speaker 2: of these other European countries are much more subject to
Speaker 2: respecting multilateralism international institutions than the US is. So they
Speaker 2: may not lose their number one, but if they, let's say,
Speaker 2: have a forty percent reduction in trade or maybe thirty
Speaker 2: percent or whatever, it's still devastating to the overall economy.
Speaker 2: Not to mention visa rights. You know, Israeli citizens are
Speaker 2: all over the world. I mean, what if they're not
Speaker 2: able to travel, freedom of you know, moving about and
Speaker 2: all that's massive implications. You know, it's an underrated part
Speaker 2: of being an Americans. You can mostly just land in
Speaker 2: whatever country you want. But if you're Israeli, I mean
Speaker 2: that could be a big problem for you.
Speaker 3: Yeah, ask a Russian, you know what it's like to
Speaker 3: fly through is stun bolt. That's exactly I think.
Speaker 2: That's the big the biggest problem of this. Well, you know,
Speaker 2: you can say whatever Yugoslavia, I mean, it took forever
Speaker 2: or even try and bring those people to justice, and
Speaker 2: their country didn't exist anymore. Or if we think about
Speaker 2: Rwanda or some of the other fallouts from there. Israel
Speaker 2: is a powerful nation there the sponsorship of the global superpower.
Speaker 2: They won't face any real like quote unquote actual consequences
Speaker 2: even if they were to be found guilty. But in
Speaker 2: the soft power realm, I certainly think this could be.
Speaker 3: A bread power.
Speaker 1: My initial reaction when I saw South Africa's filing was like, Okay,
Speaker 1: that's nice, but it's not going to matter at all, right,
Speaker 1: because I mean, we see the US and our allies
Speaker 1: we operate with impunity. We make the rules, we ignore
Speaker 1: them when it's convenient, we try to weaponize them when
Speaker 1: it's convenient, when it's against our adversaries. We see the
Speaker 1: way that this plays out, and nowhere is that more
Speaker 1: the case than with Israel, as you're pointing out, historically
Speaker 1: for many years at this point, what sort of changed
Speaker 1: my thinking about like, oh, this could actually, this could
Speaker 1: have some bite was the Israeli reaction. Yeah, because they
Speaker 1: started putting out these sort of panicked missives, urgent cables
Speaker 1: to their embassies around the world, trying to get countries
Speaker 1: to come on board and issue these statements very similar
Speaker 1: to the statements our government was making about how this
Speaker 1: is meritless and it's antisemitic and et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 1: So that showed me that they were concerned about it.
Speaker 1: The fact that they're even going to defend themselves shows
Speaker 1: a measure of seriousness about it. And then you think
Speaker 1: about it, Okay, well, what do they have to lose?
Speaker 1: As you SAIDs Are, I mean, France has already said
Speaker 1: they're going to abide by whatever the ruling is here.
Speaker 1: So you know, we're kind of on an island in
Speaker 1: terms of our willingness to just flagrantly disregard what the
Speaker 1: ICJ rules. And even with us, you know, we have
Speaker 1: laws on the book, like the Laky act that are
Speaker 1: designed to to prevent US weapons from going to massacre civilians.
Speaker 1: And so even though our State Department is saying like, oh,
Speaker 1: we're not going to look into whether there are any
Speaker 1: war crimes here, but we don't think there are, and
Speaker 1: we're just going to continue business as usual. Actually we're
Speaker 1: going to expedite these weapons shipments. It gives those who
Speaker 1: are dissenting voices a tool to use to try to
Speaker 1: compel and try to pressure the US governmento Biden himself
Speaker 1: and to force a different direction. So it gives US
Speaker 1: dissidents a tool to use. And you know, Israel is
Speaker 1: a global nation. It is you know, very proud of
Speaker 1: its high tech sector. It is very reliant and very
Speaker 1: covetous of foreign direct investment. This has been an incredibly
Speaker 1: important part of building Israel into a truly, you know,
Speaker 1: first world developed economy. And so for them to face
Speaker 1: the prospect of becoming like South Africa was in the
Speaker 1: waning days of apartheid, this sort of paria nation where
Speaker 1: no longer, this is what they said in Horatz and Anjaretes,
Speaker 1: Lit's no longer are people talking about us as occupiers.
Speaker 1: They're talking about us as genocide with the words ethnic
Speaker 1: cleensic with the words genocide, like this is a very
Speaker 1: different deal. So those things have apparently impressed the Israelis
Speaker 1: as being serious and being significant. We can put up
Speaker 1: on the screen this actually list has changed the number
Speaker 1: of countries that are supporting South Africa's case here this
Speaker 1: number rose overnight, but as of yesterday you had Malaysia, Turkey, Jordan, Bolivia, Venezuela, Pakistan, Bangladesh,
Speaker 1: the Maldives, Namibia, Nicaragua. You had Brazil join overnight, and
Speaker 1: significantly you had the Arab League, which includes Saudi Arabia,
Speaker 1: very noteworthy here joining on to this case. So I
Speaker 1: believe there are thirteen countries individually signing on to the case,
Speaker 1: and then you have the Arab League, and there's another
Speaker 1: Islamic Country Association that includes fifty seven seven different nations
Speaker 1: that have signed on as well, and apparently Saga. The
Speaker 1: reason they do it that way is to try to
Speaker 1: avoid the greatest opprobrium from the United States of America.
Speaker 1: But think about Saudi. I mean this is Israel and
Speaker 1: Saudi have been the bedrock of our Middle Eastern policy forever,
Speaker 1: and obviously we have this tight knit relationship with the Saudis.
Speaker 1: We give them tons of money as well. They were
Speaker 1: this close to normalizing relations with Israel before October seventh,
Speaker 1: and now they're signing on to a case of genocide
Speaker 1: against Israel at the ICJ. That is a dramatic turn.
Speaker 3: Of the two.
Speaker 2: Most important ones are listed. Number one is actually Turkey.
Speaker 2: Turkey is one of their largest trading partners. Netanyahu and
Speaker 2: BBS to actually have a decent relationship, and they are
Speaker 2: a member of NATO.
Speaker 3: That's why that one matters.
Speaker 2: I would actually say that probably the most important Saudi
Speaker 2: Arabia and the Arab League, is going to be number two.
Speaker 2: The reason why is that currently the US plan for
Speaker 2: bringing an end to the war is to have Saudi
Speaker 2: Arabia normalize relations with Israel officially as a continuation of
Speaker 2: the Abraham Accords, and then also include some sort of
Speaker 2: language about a two state solution. So if I mean,
Speaker 2: you can't really say that you're going to normalize relationships
Speaker 2: with somebody if you say they're also committing genocide.
Speaker 3: So it's gonna be a little bit of a difficulty.
Speaker 2: I think the problem demonstrates also some of the Gordian knots.
Speaker 2: I think that these people are in and to underscore
Speaker 2: that I also agree. And before we're about to play this,
Speaker 2: it's bbe basically walking back some of the things that
Speaker 2: have been said in Israeli society. Is something that encouraged
Speaker 2: to me when you were talking is it wouldn't Israel
Speaker 2: doesn't even have to become a pariah state. I think
Speaker 2: I have to be sensitive and the way I talk
Speaker 2: about this spill, Let's be honest. The worst thing for
Speaker 2: Israel is to them to be a normal state.
Speaker 3: What have they always been.
Speaker 2: They've been the home of the Jews post the genocide
Speaker 2: by the Nazi regime, which has imbued them. I think
Speaker 2: let's all be honest with special status in the way
Speaker 2: that they taught we were talked about in the United
Speaker 2: States very very difficult, you know, conflation of saying anti
Speaker 2: Semitism is anti Zionism.
Speaker 3: And one of the things that.
Speaker 2: They often reach for is are like, well, our ancestors
Speaker 2: were killed by the Nazis, which has imbued them kind
Speaker 2: of with a special character where they've been ab to
Speaker 2: brush off criticism I think for some seventy part of
Speaker 2: their history.
Speaker 3: I know this is very sensitive, but.
Speaker 2: I think, you know, we have to be real about
Speaker 2: the way that they've been able to have that. You know,
Speaker 2: the imbue around them of the post Nazi era was
Speaker 2: such that it gave them almost like a moral standing.
Speaker 2: If they're just elevated to what I've always wanted to
Speaker 2: treat Israel as, which is any other country, pluses and
Speaker 2: minuses of our relationship with anybody else, well, I think
Speaker 2: that's the biggest problem, is that if they're just bumped
Speaker 2: down from special status to normal status, well, that's actually
Speaker 2: a big change, you know, in their global position for
Speaker 2: a long time. And as you said, their economy, I mean,
Speaker 2: it's not America. They've got big problems. You know, they're
Speaker 2: surrounded on all sides. They Yeah, high tech sector is great,
Speaker 2: but you've got to sell it to somebody, and you
Speaker 2: can sell it to America, but America's not the whole world.
Speaker 2: You've got to import a lot of oil you have,
Speaker 2: you know, obviously, or you've got surrounded by the Red Sea.
Speaker 2: They've had hostile partners for quite some time, but they
Speaker 2: roughly were able to reach some sort of middle ground.
Speaker 2: I think they threw a lot of that away and
Speaker 2: they don't really think about what the what is this
Speaker 2: really said he looked like in twenty five years. I
Speaker 2: think that is a fundamentally different question post October seventh.
Speaker 3: Yeah, which is a problem for them.
Speaker 2: But let's play a little bit of what bb Netanyah,
Speaker 2: who said yesterday keep this in mind in English, tweeted
Speaker 2: out by the Israel account. Clearly this is targeted to
Speaker 2: America and to the world.
Speaker 3: Here's what he had to say.
Speaker 7: I would to make a few points absolutely clear. Israel
Speaker 7: has no intention of permanently occupying Gaza or displacing its
Speaker 7: civilian population. Israel is fighting Hamas terrorists, not the Palestinian population,
Speaker 7: and we are doing so in full compliance with international law.
Speaker 7: The IDEF is doing its utmost to minimize civilian casualties,
Speaker 7: while Hamas is doing its utmost to maximize them by
Speaker 7: using Palestinian civilians as human shields. The IDEAF urges Palestinian
Speaker 7: civilians to leave war zones by disseminating leaflets, making phone calls,
Speaker 7: providing safe passage corridors, while Hamas prevents Palestinians from leaving
Speaker 7: at gunpoint and often with gun fire. Our goal is
Speaker 7: to rid Gazza, Ramas service and free hour hostages. Once
Speaker 7: this is achieved, guys, it can be demilitarized and deradicalized,
Speaker 7: thereby creating a possibility for a better future for Israel
Speaker 7: and Palestinians alike.
Speaker 2: Pretty shocking actually to hear that in English. I mean,
Speaker 2: it's actually hasn't said that in a long time. We
Speaker 2: went back and looked, and I don't think it's a
Speaker 2: coincidence necessarily, crystal that it does come the day before
Speaker 2: the beginning of these genocide proceedings. But I also think
Speaker 2: a huge part of this is American domestic politics. Is
Speaker 2: that Biden apparently behind the scenes. What I was reading
Speaker 2: yesterday is that Blinken went there and Jake Sullivan and
Speaker 2: others with a message to Ben Gavie and others like
Speaker 2: you guys got to cut this out. Like if you
Speaker 2: guys keep saying this stuff, and especially putting out these
Speaker 2: tweets and all that screwing us in English, what are
Speaker 2: we supposed to do? I mean, you're causing big problems
Speaker 2: for us back in America because everybody knows how to
Speaker 2: use Google Translate and everybody can read. So this was
Speaker 2: a message effectively, what is he He's I wouldn't say
Speaker 2: he's disavowing per se, because he's the master of saying
Speaker 2: things in English and saying very different things in Hebrew.
Speaker 2: But it's different. It hasn't said it before. It hasn't
Speaker 2: really been something that he said since around October fifteenth,
Speaker 2: And the reason why is because he has such immense
Speaker 2: pressure from his right flank. Ironically, this type of statement,
Speaker 2: which probably is better off for Israel in the long
Speaker 2: run in terms of their international standing, makes his domestic
Speaker 2: political situation.
Speaker 3: Much more precarious.
Speaker 8: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I don't know though, if Ben Giverer and if these
Speaker 2: others or Smotrich would be willing to force him out
Speaker 2: specifically for them disavowing their stated desire to reoccupy and
Speaker 2: settle Gaza.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's very hard to say. We don't know what
Speaker 1: he's telling them. The Migapines like Wilsen, I guys, I
Speaker 1: gotta say this. I mean, he famously was caught on
Speaker 1: a hot Michael while ago like I know how to
Speaker 1: handle the Americans, don't worry about it. So in contrast
Speaker 1: to these statements, we have a wrath of reporting about
Speaker 1: how he wants to quote thin out the population of Gaza,
Speaker 1: about how the preferred outcome is to push them out
Speaker 1: into the Sinai desert about how they want to pressure
Speaker 1: the US to leverage our aid dollars to regional countries
Speaker 1: to pressure them into accepting refugees. We have reporting that
Speaker 1: they have been in active talks with the government of
Speaker 1: Congo about accepting refugees. So the reporting that exists, and
Speaker 1: the statements not just of Smotrich and Ben Gevie, but
Speaker 1: other Lakud party members, other ministers in his own government
Speaker 1: are directly at odds with these comments. So I would
Speaker 1: not take them all that seriously in terms of their content.
Speaker 1: I think the timing of them that you're pointing to
Speaker 1: sober is what's so significant here, Both that you had
Speaker 1: the US political class so humiliated and embarrassed by the
Speaker 1: fact that Ben Gaverin's Motrich were just so brazen in
Speaker 1: what they're saying and repeatedly saying and making incredibly clear
Speaker 1: that ethnic cleansing is their goal, that they even felt
Speaker 1: the need to put out this statement of like, listen,
Speaker 1: we don't support that, but also that's not the stated
Speaker 1: you know, that's not the policy of the Israeli government. Well,
Speaker 1: there was no evidence that that wasn't the policy of
Speaker 1: the Israeli government. So perhaps the Israelis were pressured by
Speaker 1: Blincoln or Biden, who actually hasn't talked to Netniahuo apparently
Speaker 1: in twenty days, but by blinking and others to put
Speaker 1: out some sort of ass covering statement. And then I
Speaker 1: do think the fact that this comes the day before
Speaker 1: the ICJ trial commences is no accident. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is almost like cramming for the test the night before.
Speaker 1: And you saw some other comments like this coming out
Speaker 1: from Israeli government officials. Us we're crimes, of course not
Speaker 1: of course, we're not at war with the Palestine and civilians.
Speaker 1: Very different from the seed of Amelek. These are human
Speaker 1: animals and they'll be treated as such. This we want
Speaker 1: knock the twenty twenty three very different from the sort
Speaker 1: of comments that we have heard throughout this conflict, which
Speaker 1: again I think shows that while the ICJ doesn't have
Speaker 1: any enforcement mechanism, apparently Israel is at least somewhat concerned
Speaker 1: with what they may rule in this case, what might
Speaker 1: happen here, Because as much as we would love to
Speaker 1: imagine that this court is just going to look at
Speaker 1: the case rule on the merits, we all know, just
Speaker 1: like in American context, politics reign supreme, and that's why
Speaker 1: the big Israeli push prior to this hearing was to
Speaker 1: pressure countries around the world. And so you know, there's
Speaker 1: we wanted to present you with both a counter argument
Speaker 1: that you know, the ICJ will probably find that Israel
Speaker 1: is not plausibly committing genocide and will rule against South Africa,
Speaker 1: and also an argument that no, we actually think on
Speaker 1: the merits they are going to side with South Africa
Speaker 1: in this case. Let's see which one of these do
Speaker 1: we have first? Is that Norm we've got up first here? Yes,
Speaker 1: Norm Finkelstein, who we've of course had on the show
Speaker 1: multiple times, who is you know, life like his entire
Speaker 1: adult life has been spent devoted to this cause. In
Speaker 1: understanding the nuances of it, he is actually very pessimistic
Speaker 1: that the ICJ is going to side with South Africa
Speaker 1: because of the politics I was just alluding to. Let's
Speaker 1: take a listen to a bit of that.
Speaker 9: So on the merits, I would say, they make a
Speaker 9: plausible case, but these things have never decide by the merits,
Speaker 9: decide by the law. They're decided by politics. They can't
Speaker 9: get around it. And so what do you have now?
Speaker 9: The ICJ consists of fifteen judges. The fifteen judges comprise
Speaker 9: the Security Council and ten other states. So Russia, China,
Speaker 9: the US, the UK, and France, okay, the per five
Speaker 9: permanent members. They have representatives on the ICJ. So you
Speaker 9: think yourself, oh great, okay, we lose with the US,
Speaker 9: for sure, we lose with the UK for sure. France
Speaker 9: is a question mark given the statements it's been making
Speaker 9: about what's going on in gods, I would call it
Speaker 9: the question mark. And then we go, oh great, we
Speaker 9: have one question mark than we have Russia and China.
Speaker 9: And you think, okay, we have Russia and China our side. Well,
Speaker 9: Russia is now being challenged. Are accused of genocide in Ukraine,
Speaker 9: and that's a pending case in the ICC, the International
Speaker 9: Criminal Court. So do they want to open up the
Speaker 9: Pandora's box of that genocide convention which might backfire and
Speaker 9: be used against them? Very unlikely. China, well, as everybody knows,
Speaker 9: China is being accused of genocide against Ugars. So do
Speaker 9: they want to open up the Pandora's box of the
Speaker 9: genocide Convention and it's used against them? I would say
Speaker 9: very unlikely. So right now, we have from one of five,
Speaker 9: which is Friends maybe maybe then Germany's on this year.
Speaker 3: They vote for it. They they were then Israel on it.
Speaker 9: They were for the gender shite.
Speaker 1: So he's doing the mout there and saying based on
Speaker 1: the politics.
Speaker 3: I mean, I think he's right, doesn't look great.
Speaker 2: Every single thing he laid out, especially with Russia and
Speaker 2: China and the contravening interest as to why both don't
Speaker 2: want to open yeah thing up.
Speaker 3: I think he's startingly.
Speaker 1: I mean, the only question on that one is, you know,
Speaker 1: they're not afraid of being the impocritsy either, in plenty
Speaker 1: of in plenty of instances. So do they see this
Speaker 1: more as a way to thumb their nose at the US,
Speaker 1: poke US in the eye?
Speaker 3: You know?
Speaker 1: Do they want to posture like, oh, look, they've you know,
Speaker 1: the US has dropped the ball on being the arbiters
Speaker 1: of international law and standing up for humanitarian rights. So
Speaker 1: we're picking up the ball.
Speaker 3: We're the real.
Speaker 1: Beacons of humanitarianism in the world. I think that's possible.
Speaker 1: But I also think that norms analysis is very possible
Speaker 1: as well.
Speaker 3: Certainly we have the counter case.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so international law expert Francis Boyle. It played this
Speaker 1: on Counterpoints yesterday, but I wanted to highlight it as well.
Speaker 1: He's argued successfully at the ICJ multiple times in fact
Speaker 1: and specific on the Genocide Convention, so he is like
Speaker 1: probably the most expert person on this that you could
Speaker 1: possibly imagine, and he believes quite strongly that South Africa
Speaker 1: will win this order against Israel. Let's take a listen
Speaker 1: to bit of his analysis.
Speaker 8: I was the first lawyer ever to win anything under
Speaker 8: the Genocide Convention from the International Court of Justice that
Speaker 8: goes back to nineteen twenty one. I single handedly won
Speaker 8: two World Court orders for the Republic of Bosnia Herzegovina
Speaker 8: against Yugoslavia to cease and desist from committing all acts
Speaker 8: of genocide. And based on my careful review of all
Speaker 8: the documents so far as submitted by the Republic of
Speaker 8: South Africa, I believe South Africa will win an order
Speaker 8: against Israel to cease and desist from committing all acts
Speaker 8: of genocide against the Palestinians. And under Article one of
Speaker 8: the Genocide Convention, all contracting parties one hundred and fifty
Speaker 8: three states will then be obliged quote to prevent unquote
Speaker 8: the genocide by Israel against the Palestinians. Second, when the
Speaker 8: World Court gives this cease and desist order against Israel,
Speaker 8: the Biden administration will stand condemned under Article three, paragraph
Speaker 8: E of the Genocide Convention that criminalizes complicity in genocide.
Speaker 1: So he basically makes the case like listen. Based on
Speaker 1: my expert opinion and historic knowledge of the cases, I've argued,
Speaker 1: this is even more clear cut than the victors. He's
Speaker 1: victories he's been able to obtain. And Sagera, I think
Speaker 1: he points on something really important there which is worth underscoring.
Speaker 1: That is, you know, if there is an order issued
Speaker 1: here from the Court against Israel, that order isn't just
Speaker 1: about what Israel has to do. It's also that all
Speaker 1: signatories of which we are actually a signatory here, must
Speaker 1: act to try to prevent the genocidal acts. And that's
Speaker 1: I guess the quote unquote enforcement mechanism. It's obviously dependent
Speaker 1: on those countries actually doing the thing that they're.
Speaker 3: Supposed to do.
Speaker 1: But that's why they're sort of broader implications here. I
Speaker 1: have no idea. Yeah, right, I am total novice in
Speaker 1: understanding the workings of the ICJ. I have no idea,
Speaker 1: just how nakedly political it is, what happens behind the scenes,
Speaker 1: you know what the precedents are. I really, you know,
Speaker 1: can only take the opinions of people I respect, like
Speaker 1: Francis Boyle and Norman Finkelstein. So there you go. Those
Speaker 1: are the cases on either side.
Speaker 2: My cynic's heart is with norm In general, my betting
Speaker 2: on cynicism has worked out well for me in politics
Speaker 2: here everywhere. And I don't know, I don't see a
Speaker 2: world where anyone allows happen.
Speaker 3: But hey, who that will know, we'll see totally wrong.
Speaker 1: We will. We will see what happens. And just lasting
Speaker 1: on this. In terms of the timing, I mean, they're
Speaker 1: having hearings today, tomorrow, some hearings over the weekend, and
Speaker 1: then the expectation is that they will rule on this
Speaker 1: temporary injunction in the next couple of weeks. Then there
Speaker 1: will be, you know, an argument on the merits that
Speaker 1: will take multiple years, likely based on how this has
Speaker 1: played on in the past. But we actually should know
Speaker 1: in a couple of weeks what happens with this specific
Speaker 1: fase