Speaker 1: We have breaking news this morning.
Speaker 2: The International Court have just released its preliminary ruling, and
Speaker 2: we're also going to be joined here by Treta Parsi
Speaker 2: to talk about the ruling, which is being heralded as
Speaker 2: a victory for South Africa because the Court has allowed
Speaker 2: the case to go forward. I'm kind of new with
Speaker 2: some of these devices here, so I'm going to try
Speaker 2: to put this clip up here as Hoving and Post
Speaker 2: is calling it un stunner. Top Court finds genocide risk
Speaker 2: in Gaza. The Court has given Israel one month to
Speaker 2: change its military operation to reduce the risk of genocide.
Speaker 1: It found that.
Speaker 2: There is a that South Africa has made a plausible case.
Speaker 2: Let me play real quickly a little bit from the
Speaker 2: American judge who issued the ruling, which we do not
Speaker 2: have yet in kind of full PDF.
Speaker 1: Form, but they issued it from the Hague. Here we go.
Speaker 3: In the Court's view, the foreman facts and circumstances are
Speaker 3: sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights
Speaker 3: claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking
Speaker 3: protection are plausible. This is the case with respect to
Speaker 3: the right of Palestinians and Gaza to be protected from
Speaker 3: acts of genocide and related prohibited acts identified in Article
Speaker 3: three and the right of South Africa to seek Israel's
Speaker 3: compliance with the latter's obligations under the Convention.
Speaker 2: And so we're joined now by Treta Parsi, who let
Speaker 2: me pull up tree to what you had said in
Speaker 2: a breaking fashion you wrote, the ICJ just ruled against
Speaker 2: Israel the termin that South Africa successfully argue that Israel's
Speaker 2: conduct plausibly could constitute genocide. This is a devastating blow
Speaker 2: to Israel's global standing.
Speaker 1: Unpacked that for us.
Speaker 2: Why is this considered a devastating blow when South Africa's
Speaker 2: most kind of expansive demand was an immediate cessation of
Speaker 2: all hostilities.
Speaker 4: Thank you so much, Rian, good to be with you.
Speaker 4: This is still devastating. The fact that South Africa asked
Speaker 4: for all of those things, of course in an immediate testation,
Speaker 4: was a bit optimistic at the end of the day.
Speaker 4: But what the Court has ruled is overwhelmingly in favor
Speaker 4: of South Africa. And also the division between the judges
Speaker 4: was I think stronger than expected. It was essentially only
Speaker 4: two judges that at times objected to the ruling. This
Speaker 4: is devastating because at the end of the day. This
Speaker 4: means that the South Africans have made a plausible case
Speaker 4: that genocide is taking place. Genocide is the crime of
Speaker 4: all crimes. You have to put yourself in Israel's position
Speaker 4: in terms of a historical effort by these raelis to
Speaker 4: break out of its international isolation, which has largely been
Speaker 4: very successful. Remember, up until nineteen ninety one, most countries
Speaker 4: in the world did not recognize it or did not
Speaker 4: have the diplomatic relations Israel. That all changed because of
Speaker 4: the OSMO process, and since then it's been very very successful.
Speaker 4: Then Israel has been able to normalize itself to a
Speaker 4: very large extent, at least in the West. Now you
Speaker 4: have Israel in the last couple of years increasingly being
Speaker 4: associated with apartheid. That term is increasingly public being used
Speaker 4: to describe it, and now you also have a genocide
Speaker 4: ruling against it. Of course, the final ruling has not
Speaker 4: come in yet, but essentially enough evidence has been presented
Speaker 4: to warrant a court to say that an injunction is
Speaker 4: needed and this needs to be investigated further. What that
Speaker 4: will do to Israel's international isolation and standing, I think
Speaker 4: it's going to be very significant, and if I could
Speaker 4: just add one point right. Keep in mind, in the
Speaker 4: last couple of years, they have worked so hard to
Speaker 4: delegitimize the BDS movement and pass laws against it, laws
Speaker 4: that are arguably unconstitutional in the United States. And this
Speaker 4: has not been done because they were worried about the
Speaker 4: economic impact of the BDS movement on Israel. It's because
Speaker 4: of the diplomatic and political impact in terms of essentially
Speaker 4: delegitimizing Israel. Well, nothing has delegitimized Israel more than this
Speaker 4: court fooling and the fact that one of the primary
Speaker 4: evidence that was being used in the court was Israeli
Speaker 4: political statements themselves that were used against Israel in order
Speaker 4: to show the genitiside.
Speaker 2: Let me play a response real quickly from Netan Yahoo
Speaker 2: here if I can.
Speaker 5: Israel's commitment to international law is unwavering. Equally unwavering is
Speaker 5: our sacred commitment to continue to defend our country and
Speaker 5: defend our people. Like every country, Israel has an inherent
Speaker 5: right to defend itself. The vile attempt to deny Israel
Speaker 5: this fundamental right is blatant discrimination against the Jewish States,
Speaker 5: and it was justly rejected. The charge of genocide level
Speaker 5: against Israel is not only false, is our rageous and
Speaker 5: decent people everywhere should reject it. On the eve of
Speaker 5: the International Holocaust Remembrance Day, I again pledge as Israel's
Speaker 5: Prime Minister, never again, Israel will continue to defend itself
Speaker 5: against Hamas, a genocidal terror organization. On October seventh, Hamas
Speaker 5: perpetrated the most horrific atrocities against the Jewish people since
Speaker 5: the Holocaust, and it vows to repeat these atrocities again.
Speaker 5: The war is against Hamas terrorists, not against Palestinian civilians.
Speaker 5: We will continue to facilitate humanitarian assistance and to do
Speaker 5: our utmost to keep civilians out of harm's way, even
Speaker 5: as Hamas uses civilians as human shields. We will continue
Speaker 5: to do what is necessary to defend our country and
Speaker 5: defend our lit.
Speaker 2: So that's Prime Minister management that Yahoo responding calling it discrimination,
Speaker 2: calling it outrageous, pledging to continue the war effort. What
Speaker 2: did you make of his respects there?
Speaker 4: It's very defensive and very predictable. Of course, at the
Speaker 4: end of the day, the Court is not in any way,
Speaker 4: shape or form saying that this rule doesn't have a
Speaker 4: right to defend itself. But what it is saying is
Speaker 4: that what Israel calls defense is plausibly genocide and that
Speaker 4: it needs to investigate that further. And it's giving these Raelis,
Speaker 4: as you mentioned, thirty days to address some of these things.
Speaker 4: And it also calls on Israel to prosecute those members
Speaker 4: of government that have been making genocidal statements, that includes
Speaker 4: the Natania. This is putting the United States in a
Speaker 4: very significant bind because, as the court reminded Israel, its
Speaker 4: rulings are binding, but it is the Security Council that
Speaker 4: is tasked with enforcing the implementation of this, and that
Speaker 4: means that there's very likely going to be a resolution
Speaker 4: at the UN Security Council this coming week, and it
Speaker 4: presents the United States once again with that dilemma, does
Speaker 4: it actually stand with international law and improve this or
Speaker 4: does it go against it, further isolating the US. By
Speaker 4: Catlett pick.
Speaker 2: Up on that exact point, because the New York Times wrote,
Speaker 2: and it's fairly slanted report on this, on this ruling.
Speaker 2: At one point they wrote, the court has no means
Speaker 2: of enforcement, and it is not clear how Israel will
Speaker 2: respond to the decision. But we now have you know
Speaker 2: who's response. But you would never see The New York
Speaker 2: Times right, the Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade,
Speaker 2: but it has no means of enforcement. Although that is true,
Speaker 2: Like Alexander Hamilton made that point about the Supreme Court,
Speaker 2: Andrew Jackson has made that point about the Supreme Court.
Speaker 2: The Supreme Court has made its ruling, Now let it
Speaker 2: enforce it. It has no actual mechanism of enforcement other
Speaker 2: than the kind of norms around the court and the
Speaker 2: respect that other institutions have for the Court rulings and
Speaker 2: the respect that the population has for the Court rulings.
Speaker 2: So it is not true that the Court has no
Speaker 2: means of enforcement. It has The United Nations does, in
Speaker 2: fact have means of enforcing its rulings. So the question
Speaker 2: is can it enforce those rulings? And so what are
Speaker 2: the means of enforcing those rulings and what process can
Speaker 2: we look for going forward? So Israel has in one month,
Speaker 2: Israel has to report back to the court. Let's presume
Speaker 2: they continue to participate with this process. What then happens
Speaker 2: if the Court in a month decides that Israel is
Speaker 2: not taking steps to minimize the risk of genocide.
Speaker 4: So well, I think will happen first is that you
Speaker 4: will have a UN Security Council resolution. The Algerians are
Speaker 4: already discussing it, and that would then adopt the ruling
Speaker 4: and essentially give it the enforcement capability of the UN
Speaker 4: Security Council again finding international law. And again will the
Speaker 4: United States v to that again as it has vi
Speaker 4: to the previous calls per season, And this is really
Speaker 4: you know, it's stretching the ability to be able to
Speaker 4: tolerate the double standards of the US's conduct when it
Speaker 4: comes to matters of this time. If these ratings then
Speaker 4: come back with a report, it's a question as to
Speaker 4: whether they will. They may actually choose not to engage
Speaker 4: at all and try to dismiss the legitimacy of the
Speaker 4: court altogether. But if they come back and it is
Speaker 4: not acceptable, I mean, it's going to be a legal
Speaker 4: rankling for quite some time. But the issue is that
Speaker 4: the political consequences and costs for Israel will continue as
Speaker 4: long as this is a live case and they're not
Speaker 4: living up to what the court is demanding, and that
Speaker 4: is going to inflict the political costs of the US
Speaker 4: even more so perhaps from the Europeans, from whom you know,
Speaker 4: international law and international institutions actually matter much more than
Speaker 4: it does to the US political culture, and this has
Speaker 4: just become a massive headache. And I've asked this on
Speaker 4: your show before. For what, but what reason are we
Speaker 4: accepting paying all of these different costs when there actually
Speaker 4: is a pathway to a ceasefire that actually couldn't put
Speaker 4: an end to not only the fighting, to the plausible
Speaker 4: cases of in aside, but also to the political dilemmas
Speaker 4: that the US is inflicting on itself as well.
Speaker 2: That I earlier today where you said that you thought
Speaker 2: that so far the ICJ in South Africa have had
Speaker 2: more influence on Israel's actual behavior so far than the
Speaker 2: Biden administration. What change in behavior have we seen that
Speaker 2: you think can be linked to this international effort.
Speaker 4: We saw a very clear effort by the Israelis to
Speaker 4: try to ethnically cleanse Garza by pushing the Egyptians and
Speaker 4: the Jordanians as well as some African countries, trying to
Speaker 4: see if they would take essentially two million gudens and
Speaker 4: they would depopulate Godsa. We have seen a decline in
Speaker 4: those efforts, certainly a decline in the public statements about that.
Speaker 4: I think it is quite reasonable to suspect that that
Speaker 4: has something to do with the Court, because if the
Speaker 4: court is investigating Israeli war crimes, and in the midst
Speaker 4: of that, the Israelis are very openly lobbying to see
Speaker 4: if countries will aid them and ethnically cleansing cause, that's
Speaker 4: obviously not going to be helpful for them in the case.
Speaker 4: And if that is the case, then that suggests that
Speaker 4: this idea that international law is completely toothless in this
Speaker 4: specific case. You know, just a mere application of South
Speaker 4: Africa's complained to the ICG may have had a greater
Speaker 4: impact on Israel's conduct than what the Biden administration claims
Speaker 4: that it has achieved with all of its quiet whispers
Speaker 4: in the background.
Speaker 1: Who you know.
Speaker 2: Who is with the Center for International Policy has released
Speaker 2: as statement I want to read real quickly said. Today's
Speaker 2: ruling of the International Criminal Court, which ordered Israel to
Speaker 2: undertake provisional measures to ensure that Palestinians in Gaza are
Speaker 2: protected from acts of genocide is enormously significant. International legal
Speaker 2: for such as the ICJ are appropriate venues for the
Speaker 2: handling of such consequential matters, especially in situations as dire
Speaker 2: as that in Gaza. If we support the creation of
Speaker 2: a global community based on shared rules rather than simply
Speaker 2: might makes right, it is absolutely essential that all countries,
Speaker 2: including the United States, acknowledge the legitimacy of this ruling
Speaker 2: and take necessary steps in response. And to that point,
Speaker 2: I wanted to last questions. I know you got to run,
Speaker 2: and I appreciate you jumping on with us early this morning.
Speaker 2: I wanted to quickly play my exchange yesterday with State
Speaker 2: Departments spokesperson Vedan Patel about this exact question of whether
Speaker 2: or not h the US would respect whatever the ruling
Speaker 2: was that the next day here, I'll play that and
Speaker 2: then get your response.
Speaker 4: End.
Speaker 6: Want to go back to the j question, setting aside
Speaker 6: opining on how the how the preliminary verdict might come out,
Speaker 6: would the US at least commit to not vetoing enforcement
Speaker 6: of whatever the court rules one way or the other.
Speaker 7: I'm not going to commit to any action from up here.
Speaker 1: Question from earlier.
Speaker 6: Doesn't that undermine the US US insistence that other countries
Speaker 6: ought to follow these court rulings? What does it leave
Speaker 6: of the kind of rules based order If countries can
Speaker 6: pick and choose decisions.
Speaker 7: That's certainly not what I was indicating. Again, I think
Speaker 7: we need to take a step back here because a
Speaker 7: decision has not come down, and no one here knows
Speaker 7: unless you can tell the future what exactly that will be.
Speaker 7: I'm not going to commit any US government action from
Speaker 7: up here within the ostracies of any body. What I
Speaker 7: can say is that we believe that the allegations that
Speaker 7: started this process that Israel is committing genocide, we believe
Speaker 7: those to be unfounded. Simultaneously, though, we'll continue to raise
Speaker 7: with our Israeli partners the moral and strategy comparative that
Speaker 7: they take additional steps to minimize civilians.
Speaker 2: That's more or less his response. How do you feel
Speaker 2: the State Department will evolve after today's actual ruling now
Speaker 2: that they can't do that, Well, we don't know how
Speaker 2: they're going to rule.
Speaker 4: I think it's a problematic enough for the State Department
Speaker 4: to continue to defend the US's refusal to push this
Speaker 4: rule in the direction of the SEATSPY. Already, this is
Speaker 4: just going to make matters worse. Let me make two
Speaker 4: points of this. First of all, it is quite fascinating.
Speaker 4: I don't remember exact numbers, but we looked into it
Speaker 4: that senior Biden administration officials have more or less stopped
Speaker 4: using the term rules based international order. Since October seventh,
Speaker 4: there's been a significant decline, and that tells you stoping
Speaker 4: a clear awareness in there that they know very well
Speaker 4: that there is no consistency whatsoever and there's no legitimacy
Speaker 4: or credibility talking about it, given how the United States
Speaker 4: under Biden has acted on it in the case of Gauda,
Speaker 4: and it's been the time frame is social short after
Speaker 4: Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, so that the discrepancy the
Speaker 4: double standards are just so late. Secondly, I think it's
Speaker 4: also important to note here that Biden's beer hawk unconditional
Speaker 4: support for Israel in all of this may actually have
Speaker 4: contributed to this, because had Biden adopted a more measured
Speaker 4: approach and actually pushed back against Israeli accessive in a
Speaker 4: much more impotent way, the Israelis may not have ended
Speaker 4: up engaging in activities that the Court then would find
Speaker 4: plausibly constituting a genocide, and that I think tells you
Speaker 4: again how problematic it is when the United States gives
Speaker 4: blank checks to some of its partners, whether it's Israel,
Speaker 4: saviu Ravier. Whoever it undermines US national interest and security,
Speaker 4: it certainly undermines the partner's interest as well, because look
Speaker 4: at where it Israel is finding it suffering. So paradoxically,
Speaker 4: perhaps the very excessive amount of support that Biden has
Speaker 4: proved it is will w It's actually backfired in the
Speaker 4: finding analysis an undefined.
Speaker 1: Treata PARSI, thank you so much.
Speaker 2: Treat as the executive vice president at the Quincy Institute
Speaker 2: for Responsible Statecraft, I'm Ryan Graham. I'm the watching bureau
Speaker 2: chief for The Intercept and also co host of Counterpoints.
Speaker 2: You can watch Breaking Points every morning at YouTube, Spotify
Speaker 2: and elsewhere you can go to actually go to Breakingpoints
Speaker 2: dot com. We have a twenty five percent off our
Speaker 2: premium memberships right now which enable us to do this reporting.
Speaker 1: And I've got my book right here behind me, which.
Speaker 2: Is the final final plug that the squad AOC in
Speaker 2: the hope of a political revolution, which is heavily about
Speaker 2: the way that the pro Israel lobby has shaped what
Speaker 2: is possible within democratic party discourse when it comes to
Speaker 2: Israel Palestine. So treat it once again, thank you so
Speaker 2: much for joining us this morning, this is fascinating. We're
Speaker 2: going to continue to cover this