Speaker 1: Hey guys. So this week on January eleventh, hearings will
Speaker 1: begin at the International Court of Justice against Israel, who,
Speaker 1: according to South Africa's complaint, is committing genocide. South Africa
Speaker 1: submitted a detailed, eighty four page complaint explaining why they
Speaker 1: have gone forward with this case, and to be honest
Speaker 1: with you, when I originally saw this filing, I was
Speaker 1: hardened by it. But I also felt like the US
Speaker 1: and our allies just do whatever we want willy nilly
Speaker 1: on the global stage, and so I was instinctively doubtful
Speaker 1: that these proceedings would actually matter. However, some events this
Speaker 1: weekend have kind of changed my mind and shifted my perspective,
Speaker 1: namely the fact that Israel seems to be taking this
Speaker 1: incredibly seriously and seems to be very concerned about how
Speaker 1: all of this may unfold. So with that as context,
Speaker 1: I wanted to spend some time going through what Israel's
Speaker 1: counterclaims are going to be, what their defense is, the
Speaker 1: indications that they are actually freaked out about how these
Speaker 1: proceedings may go for them. I wanted to give you
Speaker 1: a little bit of back story and context on what
Speaker 1: exactly the International Court of Justice is, how this process
Speaker 1: is going to play out, and what exactly even is
Speaker 1: the genocide Convention? How is that defined? And then I
Speaker 1: want to spend some time too with the actual complaint,
Speaker 1: some of the details of which if you follow the news,
Speaker 1: if you watch our show, you'll be familiar. But it's
Speaker 1: still worth taking some time to really sit with the claims.
Speaker 1: The South African document here, the case that they make
Speaker 1: is very compelling, and part of why it's so compelling
Speaker 1: is not only because of the numbers and the statements
Speaker 1: that we've tracked of Israeli politicians and Israeli military officials,
Speaker 1: but they actually cite UN officials assessments themselves, which makes
Speaker 1: it very hard for a UN body the ICJ to refute.
Speaker 1: So let me go ahead and dive into this first part,
Speaker 1: which caused me to take a closer look at these
Speaker 1: charges and reconsider how serious this could be for Israel.
Speaker 1: So this is a report from Axios that I can
Speaker 1: put up here on the screen that I believe just
Speaker 1: dropped this weekend about what Israel's response is. This is
Speaker 1: from Barack Revied. He says, inside Israel's plan to quash
Speaker 1: South Africa's Gaza genocide case and Apparently the TLDR of
Speaker 1: this is that they sent out an urgent cable to
Speaker 1: countries around the world, effectively begging them to come out
Speaker 1: with statements. We saw our own officials here, Biden administration officials,
Speaker 1: both Matthew Miller and John Kirby, coming out with the
Speaker 1: sorts of statements that Israel is effectively demanding here of
Speaker 1: their allies, and also gives a little bit of insight
Speaker 1: into how they intend to defend themselves against the charge
Speaker 1: that they are in the process of committing a genocide
Speaker 1: and they are failing to block the commission or incitement
Speaker 1: to genocide. So let me read you a little bit
Speaker 1: of this. They say, the Israeli Foreign Ministry is instructing
Speaker 1: its embassies to press diplomats and polo titians in their
Speaker 1: host countries to issue statements against South Africa's case at
Speaker 1: the ICJ that accuses Israel committing genocide in Gaza. So
Speaker 1: the cable they say, sent by the Israeli Foreign Ministry
Speaker 1: on Thursday illustrates Israel's diplomatic action plan ahead of next
Speaker 1: week's ICJ hearing to create international pressure on the Court
Speaker 1: to not issue an injunction that orders Israel to suspend
Speaker 1: its military campaign in Gaza. So already that's noteworthy, both
Speaker 1: because of the fact they're clearly taking this seriously, but
Speaker 1: also that their primary action isn't to argue against the
Speaker 1: merits of what's being presented here, but to say, we
Speaker 1: need to create international pressure so that the Court feels
Speaker 1: like they can't issue any sort of injunction against us.
Speaker 1: So they go on to give some of the backstory
Speaker 1: here that I've already explained, but they say Israel immediately
Speaker 1: rejected the case as baseless, but unlike in previous cases
Speaker 1: at international tribunals, it decided to appear in front of
Speaker 1: the court because it is a signatory to the Genocide Convention,
Speaker 1: and Israel will be represented at the ICJ by the
Speaker 1: British barrister Malcolm Shaw, to everyone's sagarn not Alan Dershowitz, sadly,
Speaker 1: who would have been just a perfect choice. It was
Speaker 1: reportedly being considered and floated, but anyway, this British lawyer,
Speaker 1: Malcolm Shaw, is going to be chosen instead. Pretoria has
Speaker 1: asked the court to file urgent provisional measures, including ordering
Speaker 1: Israel to suspend its military campaign in Gaza, while the
Speaker 1: case proceeds. This part's important too, so it will take
Speaker 1: years to actually fully adjudicate the charge of genocide against Israel.
Speaker 1: So what South Africa is immediately asking for is first
Speaker 1: an emergency hearing, which they've already been granted. That's why
Speaker 1: this starts this week. And then what they want is
Speaker 1: these provisional measures to effectively stop any of the actions
Speaker 1: that could constitute genocide and is continuing to create harm
Speaker 1: to the afflicted population while the case is being fully adjudicated.
Speaker 1: So that's what this initial hearing is actually about. Behind
Speaker 1: the scenes, they say. The Israeli Foreign Ministry cable states,
Speaker 1: israel strategy goal is for the court to reject the
Speaker 1: request for an injunction. That's what I was just referring,
Speaker 1: to refrain from determining the Israel's committing genocide in Gaza
Speaker 1: and recognize that the Israeli military is operating in the
Speaker 1: strip according to international law. Quote a ruling by the
Speaker 1: court could have significant potential implications that are not only
Speaker 1: in the legal world, but have practical bilateral multilateral economic
Speaker 1: security ramifications reads the cable, copy of which was obtained
Speaker 1: by Axios from three different Israeli officials. They declined to comment.
Speaker 1: What they're asking is for them to say they immediately
Speaker 1: and unequivocally issue public statements that say they state that
Speaker 1: their country rejects the outrageous is that a word, absurd
Speaker 1: and baseless allegations made against Israel. They argue that under
Speaker 1: the nineteen forty eight Convention, genocide is defined as creating
Speaker 1: conditions that don't allow the survival of the population, together
Speaker 1: with the intent to annihilate it, and so they want
Speaker 1: officials in countries around the world to stress Israel's efforts
Speaker 1: to increase humananeitarian aid to the population in Gaza very questionable.
Speaker 1: How they can argue that as a majority of the
Speaker 1: population in Gaza is currently starving as we speak, but nevertheless,
Speaker 1: and to also decrease the number of civilians who are killed,
Speaker 1: they say that is critical. That also seems to be
Speaker 1: a difficult argument given that civilian casualties range somewhere around
Speaker 1: eighty to ninety percent of the total killed in the cable.
Speaker 1: The Israeli embassies were instructed to ask diplomats and politicians
Speaker 1: at the highest level to publicly acknowledge Israel's working together
Speaker 1: with international actors to increase the humanitarian aid to Gaza
Speaker 1: as well as to minimize damage to civilians while acting
Speaker 1: in self defense after the horrible October seventh attack by
Speaker 1: a genocidal terrorist organization. So they are taking this very seriously,
Speaker 1: and I did a little bit of additional reading of
Speaker 1: some of why this could actually have an impact. As
Speaker 1: I mentioned, you know, the ICJ could issue an immediate
Speaker 1: injunction saying basically like you have to stop what you're
Speaker 1: doing in a period, end of story. Now, they don't
Speaker 1: really have an enforcement mechanism, and in fact, they issue
Speaker 1: ruling against Russia that Russia has just completely blown off
Speaker 1: and ignored. So it's not like they really have teeth
Speaker 1: or any mechanism to actually enforce the signatories to this
Speaker 1: convention to abide by their rulings. However, you know, here
Speaker 1: in the US we can use us as an example.
Speaker 1: Our administration has said we're not gonning even look into
Speaker 1: whether Israel's committing war crimes. And the reason they're doing
Speaker 1: that is because number one, they don't want to get
Speaker 1: the answer. Number two, if Israel's committing war crimes, we
Speaker 1: are directly complicit in those because of our shipment of
Speaker 1: weapons and unconditional support of all of the actions that
Speaker 1: are being taken. So if you have this international body
Speaker 1: that the US is also a signatory to having some
Speaker 1: finding that it is plausible Israel's committing genocide, that makes
Speaker 1: things a lot more uncomfortable for the Biden administration. It
Speaker 1: also could call into question enforcement of things like the
Speaker 1: Laky Act, which are meant to prevent shipment of weapons
Speaker 1: to countries that are using them against civilians. So effectively,
Speaker 1: what the US government has been doing so far is
Speaker 1: just pleading ignorance, like, oh, we're not the judge and jury. No,
Speaker 1: we think these claims are meritless. But also we're not
Speaker 1: even looking into these claims. If you have this international
Speaker 1: body that we are participating in saying yes, the claims
Speaker 1: have merit, Yes we think it's plausible they're committing genocide. Yes,
Speaker 1: we're issuing a formal injunction. They need to cease and
Speaker 1: desist right away. Listen. Do I think it's going to
Speaker 1: change what the Biden administration is doing. Not necessarily, I'm
Speaker 1: not super hopeful on that front, but it will make
Speaker 1: things a lot more uncomfortable for them. For other countries
Speaker 1: around the world, which have a lot more respect for
Speaker 1: international law and international institutions. This could actually change their
Speaker 1: approach to this conflict, could lead to economic sanctions, it
Speaker 1: could lead to issues for diplomats trying from Israel, trying
Speaker 1: to travel abroad. You've already had France saying that they're
Speaker 1: going to abide by what the ICJ finds. You've already
Speaker 1: had countries like Turkey say they agree with the South
Speaker 1: African case and effectively signing on to it as well.
Speaker 1: So that's some of the bigger context of why Israel
Speaker 1: is concerned here. And you know, there's also an emotional aspect.
Speaker 1: The Genocide Convention and the ICJ comes directly out of
Speaker 1: the horrors of World War Two and specifically the horrors
Speaker 1: of the Holocaust. That's why Israel's long time been a
Speaker 1: longtime supporter of the Genocide Convention because of this, you know,
Speaker 1: incredibly foundational trauma that Jewish people and many Israelis actually
Speaker 1: experience through their relatives, experiences are connected to So for
Speaker 1: them to be found to even plausibly be engaging in genocide,
Speaker 1: let alone, you know, after years, if this is adjudicated,
Speaker 1: if they are found to have actually committed or attempted
Speaker 1: or conspired or you know, enabled a genocide then that
Speaker 1: would you know, that would be a pretty huge blow
Speaker 1: to their own self conception. So there's there's an emotional
Speaker 1: aspect of this as well. I want to go ahead
Speaker 1: and get into some of the details here of what
Speaker 1: exactly is the Genocide Convention. I always think it's a
Speaker 1: good idea just to start with the language itself and
Speaker 1: then we can assess from there. I also want to
Speaker 1: say that regardless of whether you think the South Africa
Speaker 1: claims on their face have merit, I really do encourage you.
Speaker 1: I'm going to go through some of their argument. I
Speaker 1: do encourage you to read it yourself, and that way,
Speaker 1: you know, you can have an informed opinion. I also
Speaker 1: plan to go through, you know, whatever Israel submits in
Speaker 1: their defense too. But I think you know, this is
Speaker 1: obviously one of the gravest things that a country or
Speaker 1: a government can be accused of, and so if you
Speaker 1: are able to take the time to go through its
Speaker 1: eighty four pages from South Africa and read what they
Speaker 1: lay out and why they feel what's happening right now
Speaker 1: is consistent with violation of the Genocide Convention, I really
Speaker 1: do encourage you to do that. So here is the
Speaker 1: actual text of the Genocide Convention, and I won't read
Speaker 1: all of it, but i'll read the first three articles here,
Speaker 1: which are sort of the most relevant. So Article one,
Speaker 1: they say the contracting parties confirm that genocide, whether committed
Speaker 1: in time of peace or in time of war, is
Speaker 1: a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent
Speaker 1: and to punish. Now this is important because again we're signatory.
Speaker 1: So not only are we obligated to not do a genocide,
Speaker 1: which right now you know arguably we are complicit in,
Speaker 1: but we also are obligated to try to prevent it.
Speaker 1: And South Africa, you know, they make the case that
Speaker 1: we are fulfilling our obligations to try to prevent genocide
Speaker 1: by filing this case. Article two says, in the present convention,
Speaker 1: genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent
Speaker 1: to destroy, in whole or in part a national, ethnical,
Speaker 1: or racial or religious group as such. So these are
Speaker 1: the type of actions that can be consistent with genocide.
Speaker 1: You don't have to be doing all of them, but
Speaker 1: any of the following acts with intent to destroy in
Speaker 1: whole or in part a group, including killing members of
Speaker 1: the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members
Speaker 1: of the group, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of
Speaker 1: life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole,
Speaker 1: or in part, imposing measures intended to prevent births within
Speaker 1: the group, forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Speaker 1: Article three says the following act shall be punishable. And
Speaker 1: this is significant as well. Genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide,
Speaker 1: direct and public incitement to commit genocide, And that becomes
Speaker 1: relevant when we get to all of the many statements
Speaker 1: that have been made by Israeli officials and military officials
Speaker 1: that seem to include genocidal intent. Next one is attempt
Speaker 1: to commit genocide and complicity in genocide. So you know
Speaker 1: these this is directly about Israel, but obviously the US
Speaker 1: because we have provided Israel so much support, not just
Speaker 1: right now but over the years, also is implicated. This
Speaker 1: is something Ryan Grimm actually asked Matthew Miller about whether
Speaker 1: he was concerned, and he sort of brushed off, But
Speaker 1: apparently there is quite a bit of reason to be
Speaker 1: concerned in Israel is concerned right now about what all
Speaker 1: of this could mean. So before I dive into the
Speaker 1: specifics of the South Africa Report. You couldn't. You could
Speaker 1: do a lot worse. If you just want the TLDR
Speaker 1: of what's in this report, then to look at these
Speaker 1: statistics from euromed Monitor, which has been tracking you know,
Speaker 1: deaths and displacements and destruction in the Gaza Strip since
Speaker 1: the beginning of Israel's assault, and they they track here
Speaker 1: as of January fourth, thirty thousand in six hundred and
Speaker 1: seventy six killed. That includes those who are presumed dead
Speaker 1: under the rubble. That includes twelve thousand, forty children, six
Speaker 1: one hundred three women, twenty eight two hundred and one civilians.
Speaker 1: That is roughly a ninety percent civilian death toll. And again,
Speaker 1: these are many of the things that are tracked at
Speaker 1: length and really fleshed out and supported in South Africa's
Speaker 1: filing here. But just to give you the top line,
Speaker 1: this is as good a way as any to look
Speaker 1: at some of the actions that are being taken that
Speaker 1: South Africa is arguing constitute genocide. You've had almost everyone
Speaker 1: in the Gaza Strip at this point, one point nine
Speaker 1: three five million people who've been displaced. You've got Press
Speaker 1: headquarters one hundred and sixty nine destroyed, two hundred and
Speaker 1: one mosques damaged, three churches damaged, one hundred and ninety
Speaker 1: eight heritage sites damaged, fifty eighty nine hundred and sixty injured,
Speaker 1: over one hundred journalists killed. You have massive destruction to
Speaker 1: private residences, so sixty seven, nine hundred and forty six
Speaker 1: completely destroyed homes and one hundred and seventy nine thousand,
Speaker 1: seven hundred and fifty partially destroyed homes, three hundred and
Speaker 1: eighteen damaged schools, five hundred and twenty four healthcare professionals
Speaker 1: who have been killed or injured, one hundred and sixty
Speaker 1: seven civil defense workers. Those are the type of people
Speaker 1: who would be attempting to pull folks from the rubble.
Speaker 1: One hundred and sixty seven of those killed or injured,
Speaker 1: one thousand, six hundred and twelve destroyed industrial facilities, one
Speaker 1: hundred and sixty nine healthcare facilities damaged, twenty three hospitals,
Speaker 1: fifty seven clinics and eighty nine ambulances, and two eight
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty detainees or forcibly disappeared. So these are
Speaker 1: some of the facts that are laid out in depth
Speaker 1: in the South Africa filing. And I want to go
Speaker 1: ahead and pull up now the case that they have
Speaker 1: laid out their eighty four page case itself, So I
Speaker 1: can go through a bit of this, and obviously I
Speaker 1: can read the whole eighty four pages, but I wanted
Speaker 1: to give you a sense of how they lay this out.
Speaker 1: And there's a number of components here. So first of all,
Speaker 1: they actually set the context. They say, listen, it's not
Speaker 1: just what's happening now, it's what's been happening over years,
Speaker 1: with forcible displacements, with violence against Palestinians, both in the
Speaker 1: West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with an occupation, with
Speaker 1: a blockade, with a separate system of justice for Palestinians
Speaker 1: versus Israelis. So they lay that out. Then of course
Speaker 1: they lay out the facts that I was just alluding
Speaker 1: to of the military action that is happening and the
Speaker 1: way it has been incredibly destructive to civilian life and
Speaker 1: has been inconsistent honestly with life when you have so
Speaker 1: many people starving, so many people dead, so much of
Speaker 1: the Gaza Strip destroyed. So they go through that as well.
Speaker 1: They also talk about what they actually want to accomplish
Speaker 1: with this, and critically, you know, so in terms of
Speaker 1: their standing and in terms of ultimate finding of genocide,
Speaker 1: but in the immediate term, this temporary injunction that they're
Speaker 1: hoping will be issued to try to cease fighting and cease,
Speaker 1: you know, the assault on the Gaza strip. And critically,
Speaker 1: and this is something that I've talked about before and
Speaker 1: that we've covered fairly extensively, they document page after page
Speaker 1: of Israeli officials and military officials calling for Gaza to
Speaker 1: be flattened, saying there are no innocent civilians and expressing
Speaker 1: pretty clear and oftentimes completely clear genocidal intent. That part
Speaker 1: is very noteworthy because usually the reason why genocide is
Speaker 1: so difficult to prove is because typically people don't go
Speaker 1: around saying, let's do a genocide. We're doing a genocide,
Speaker 1: there are no innocent civilians, they all should die, the
Speaker 1: whole area should be flattened. Usually those sort of statements
Speaker 1: are not directly made. That is not the case here,
Speaker 1: and again we've covered many, but not even close to
Speaker 1: the majority of the comments that are documented here. I
Speaker 1: will share a few of them with you today just
Speaker 1: so you can get a sense of that. But that
Speaker 1: ability to show intent based on their own words is
Speaker 1: one of the more damning parts of this case that's
Speaker 1: laid out here. So let me just start by reading
Speaker 1: this portion I have highlighted because it kind of gives
Speaker 1: an overview of what they want to lay in this report.
Speaker 1: They say the facts relied on by South African this
Speaker 1: application be further developed. In these proceedings established that against
Speaker 1: a background of apartheid, expulsion, ethnic cleansing, annexation, occupation, discrimination,
Speaker 1: and the ongoing denial of the right of the Palestinian
Speaker 1: people to self determination, Israel since October seventh, in particular,
Speaker 1: has failed to prevent genocide and has failed to prosecute
Speaker 1: the direct and public incitement to genocide. More gravely, still,
Speaker 1: Israel has engaged in is engaging in and risks further
Speaker 1: engaging in genocidal acts against the Palestinian people in Gaza.
Speaker 1: Those acts include killing them, causing them serious mental and
Speaker 1: bodily harm, and deliberately inflicting on them conditions of life
Speaker 1: calculated to bring about their physical destruction as a group.
Speaker 1: Repeated statements by Israeli state representatives, including at the highest
Speaker 1: levels by the Israeli President, Prime Minister, and Minister of Defense,
Speaker 1: expressed genocidal intent. That intent is also properly to be
Speaker 1: inferred from the nature and conduct of Israel's military operation
Speaker 1: in Gaza, having regard, inter alia to Israel's failure to
Speaker 1: provide or ensure essential food, water, medicine, fuel, shelter, and
Speaker 1: other humanitarian assistants for the besieged and blockaded Palestinian people,
Speaker 1: which has pushed them to the brink of famine. It
Speaker 1: is also clear from the nature's scope and extent of
Speaker 1: Israel's military attacks on Gaza, which have involved the sustained
Speaker 1: bombardment over more than eleven weeks of one of the
Speaker 1: most densely populated places in the world, forcing the evacuation
Speaker 1: of one point nine million people or eighty five percent
Speaker 1: of the population of Gaza from their homes and hurting
Speaker 1: them into ever smaller areas without adequate shelter, in which
Speaker 1: they continue to be attacked, killed and harmed. So that
Speaker 1: is kind of their overview and lays down, as I
Speaker 1: just explained, the various pieces of the case that they
Speaker 1: are going to make, and the first part that they
Speaker 1: talk about is the context of the lengthy occupation, illegal settlements, apartheid, blockade,
Speaker 1: and consistent violence against the Palestinian people. So they're saying, listen,
Speaker 1: it's very clear what's been going on since October seventh.
Speaker 1: But part of what led us to our conclusion that
Speaker 1: this is an ongoing genocide is the fact that you've
Speaker 1: had this lengthy history of violence, contry, occupation, illegal settlements, etc.
Speaker 1: And I pulled just let me find this one part
Speaker 1: to give you a sense of the case that they're
Speaker 1: making there. So they say, Israel's actions in the West
Speaker 1: Bank since October seventh, including for its support for and
Speaker 1: failure to prevent or punish Israeli settlers, for incitement and
Speaker 1: violence against Palestinians and Palestinian property, including the driving out
Speaker 1: of vulnerable Palestinian communities from their lands, are intrinsically connected
Speaker 1: to Israel's actions in Gaza and provided the very least
Speaker 1: important context to Israel's violations of the Genocide Convention. So
Speaker 1: they say, listen, these are not two separate things. You
Speaker 1: have to look at the assault on Gaza and the
Speaker 1: loss of life here in the destruction of civilian infrastructure.
Speaker 1: Have to look at all of these pieces in the
Speaker 1: context of what has been going on for years and years.
Speaker 1: These are, they say, intrinsically connected to Israel's actions in Gaza.
Speaker 1: Let me give you a little bit more of the
Speaker 1: case that they make in terms of the occupation and
Speaker 1: the siege. They talk both about what happened in the
Speaker 1: West Bank and also what they have seen over years
Speaker 1: in Gaza. Let me just find this piece if I
Speaker 1: can spell Special Rapper Tour. Here we go. In twenty twenty,
Speaker 1: the United Nations Special Rapper Tour on the Situation of
Speaker 1: Human Rights in the Palestadine and Territories occupied since nineteen
Speaker 1: sixty seven describe the impact of Israel's blockade on Gaza,
Speaker 1: having turned Gaza from a low income society with modest
Speaker 1: but growing export ties to the regional and international economy
Speaker 1: to an impoverished ghetto with a decimated economy and a
Speaker 1: collapsing social service system. They go on to cite that report,
Speaker 1: saying in twenty twenty two, he described the situation as follows.
Speaker 1: In Gaza, the apparent strategy of Israel is the indefinite
Speaker 1: warehousing of an unwanted population of two million Palestinians, whom
Speaker 1: it has confined to a narrow strip of land through
Speaker 1: its comprehensive fifteen year old air, land and sea blockade,
Speaker 1: with further restrictions by Egypt on the southern border of
Speaker 1: Gaza BANKIMUN has called this political quarantining of the population
Speaker 1: a collective punishment, which is a serious breach of international law.
Speaker 1: They also lay on in great detail here the apartheid
Speaker 1: system that exists with regards to the residents of the
Speaker 1: occupied West Bank and the violence that they have faced.
Speaker 1: They document how this before October seventh was one of
Speaker 1: the deadliest years in history for Palestinians living in the
Speaker 1: West Bank. And so they say, listen, when you're considering
Speaker 1: what's happening right now, you also have to look at
Speaker 1: what has been happening to Palestinians over years and years.
Speaker 1: Let me go ahead and turn to their documentation of
Speaker 1: what is actually happening right now in Gaza, and they
Speaker 1: go through horrors of the number of civilians killed, the
Speaker 1: conditions in which they have been killed, They go through
Speaker 1: the here we go, They go through the horrible conditions
Speaker 1: facing children in particular, and how that has made it
Speaker 1: impossible for children to be safe, the emotional trauma that
Speaker 1: they have suffered over many years. And I don't want
Speaker 1: to dwell too much on this section because I showed
Speaker 1: you the euromed monitor numbers. This is the sort of
Speaker 1: thing that we try to cover day in and day
Speaker 1: out at breaking points. If you've been watching the videos
Speaker 1: or the news, you probably are familiar with, well, not
Speaker 1: the regular news, but if you're watching us, if you're
Speaker 1: looking on TikTok, if you're looking at any sort of
Speaker 1: non biased news source, you're likely familiar with the extent
Speaker 1: of the horror and thetrocities. But just to give you
Speaker 1: a sense of part of what they're documenting here, and
Speaker 1: you know, just some of the horrors that sometimes don't
Speaker 1: even get noticed in the melee of the ongoing atrocities
Speaker 1: that are being committed. They talked about what was unfolding
Speaker 1: inside of hospitals and the conditions that doctors are attempting
Speaker 1: to work in, the conditions that patients have found themselves in.
Speaker 1: At one point, they say, you know, the hospitals, they
Speaker 1: say they've turned in to make shift morgus, they've turned into,
Speaker 1: they've had to dig mass graves outside of them are
Speaker 1: more like hospice centers than they are places of ongoing care.
Speaker 1: And even that is too kind, because hospice centers indicate
Speaker 1: an ability to provide some sort of care for people
Speaker 1: who are at the end of their lives, and they
Speaker 1: say in particular here I'll read this section. Those hospitals
Speaker 1: which are still functioning are described as scenes from a
Speaker 1: horror movie. The critical shortages of staff and supplies, including anesthetics, analgesics, medicine,
Speaker 1: and disinfectants, have led not only to otherwise unnecessary amputations
Speaker 1: of limbs, but also to amputations without anesthesia. Imagine that
Speaker 1: amputations without anesthesion. I know some of these have been
Speaker 1: conducted on children, often undertaken by flashlight. Pregnant women also
Speaker 1: being subjected to cesareans without anesthetic. Patients are being treated
Speaker 1: on dirty floors covered with blood, with family members having
Speaker 1: to stand holding saline bags where sailine is even available.
Speaker 1: There are insufficient staff and resources for adequate wound or
Speaker 1: postoperative wound care. Unclean wounds, often infested with worms and flies,
Speaker 1: rapidly become infected, necrotic or gangrenous. Patients plead for food
Speaker 1: and water. Even basic pain management treatment is often unavailable,
Speaker 1: and patients are at risk of dying from treatable conditions.
Speaker 1: One doctor described having to do procedures without anesthetic. He said,
Speaker 1: I was forced to do dressing changes on massive wounds
Speaker 1: excruciatingly painful wounds. There was a girl with just her
Speaker 1: whole body covered in shrapnel. She was nine. I ended
Speaker 1: up having to change and clean these wounds with no
Speaker 1: anesthetic and no analgesic. I managed to find some intravenous
Speaker 1: paracetamol to give her. Her dad was crying, I was crying,
Speaker 1: and the poor child was screaming. So these are the
Speaker 1: sort of accounts that are provided in this lengthy report.
Speaker 1: And there's quite a bit too on the level of hunger, starvation,
Speaker 1: the famine conditions which have been imposed. At the beginning
Speaker 1: they announced a complete siege. Now there has been some
Speaker 1: numbers of trucks AID trucks that have been allowed in
Speaker 1: wildly insufficient for the needs. They go into great detail
Speaker 1: about the sanitation failures, raw sewage in the streets, one
Speaker 1: toilet for hundreds and hundreds of people, you know, one
Speaker 1: shower for thousands and thousands of people, the mass displacement.
Speaker 1: They go into all of it here. And part of
Speaker 1: what makes it so difficult for again a un body
Speaker 1: here in the ICJ to deny is that much of
Speaker 1: this is being documented by the UN And remember un
Speaker 1: AID workers have been killed here in larger numbers than
Speaker 1: any other war in the UN's history, so they have had,
Speaker 1: you know, a very personal view of what has been
Speaker 1: happening here on the ground that is documented in this report. So,
Speaker 1: as I mentioned before, and as I covered a little bit,
Speaker 1: we've covered some of these comments, though nowhere close to
Speaker 1: all of them. There's a lengthy section that attempts to
Speaker 1: establish intent based simply on the public statements of find
Speaker 1: this one. The public statements of various Israeli politicians up
Speaker 1: to including net Yahoo, Isaac Krtzog, senior Lacud party members,
Speaker 1: various cabinet members. I mean, you can see here all
Speaker 1: of these different ministers. President of Israel, Israeli Minister of Defense,
Speaker 1: Israeli Minister for National Security, Minister of Energy and Infrastructure,
Speaker 1: Minister of Finance. A couple here that I'm not sure
Speaker 1: that we had covered on breaking points, which are quite
Speaker 1: clear with sa Palastinians in Gaza. So I'll read a
Speaker 1: few of the comments here that I think we didn't
Speaker 1: cover on breaking points. But really, you know, you could
Speaker 1: read any of these and be appropriately horrified about the
Speaker 1: sentiments that are being expressed just open and in public,
Speaker 1: not just by random commentators or people online, but by
Speaker 1: senior officials in positions of power. So this is the
Speaker 1: Israeli Minister of Heritage. This individual post on Facebook the
Speaker 1: north of the Gaza Strip more beautiful than ever. Everything
Speaker 1: is blown up and flattened, simply a pleasure for the eyes.
Speaker 1: We must talk about the day after. In my mind,
Speaker 1: we will hand over lots to all those who fought
Speaker 1: for Gaza over the years and to those evicted from
Speaker 1: Gush Katifa former Israeli settlement. He later argued against humanitarian
Speaker 1: aid as we wouldn't hand the Nazis humanitarian aid, so
Speaker 1: calling all Balastinians Nazis, and he said there is no
Speaker 1: such thing as uninvolved civilians in Gaza. This individual, which
Speaker 1: I think we did cover on the show, also posited
Speaker 1: a nuclear attack on the Gaza Strip. We've got the
Speaker 1: Minister of Agriculture. There's some statements here from army officials
Speaker 1: that are quite noteworthy. Let me read you some from
Speaker 1: Giora Island. This is an Israeli Army reservist major general,
Speaker 1: former head of the Israeli National Security Council and advisor
Speaker 1: to the Defense Minister. He said on October seventh, describing
Speaker 1: the Israeli order to cut off water and electricity. This
Speaker 1: is what Israel has begun to do. We cut the
Speaker 1: supply of energy, water and diesel to the strip, but
Speaker 1: it it's not enough. In order to make the siege effective,
Speaker 1: we have to prevent others from giving assistance to Gaza.
Speaker 1: The people should be told they have two choices, to
Speaker 1: stay and to starve, or to leave. Giora Island has
Speaker 1: made a number of other similar comments demanding that the
Speaker 1: humanitarian crisis be furthered and that they not give in say,
Speaker 1: the State of Israel has no choice but to make
Speaker 1: Gaza a place that is temporarily or permanently impossible to
Speaker 1: live in. He also said of the attack on raid
Speaker 1: on Alshifa Hospital, which he described as inescapable, I hope
Speaker 1: the head of the CIA got an explanation of why
Speaker 1: this is necessary and why the US must ultimately back
Speaker 1: even an operation like this, even if there are thousands
Speaker 1: of bodies of civilians in the streets. Afterward, another time,
Speaker 1: he said Gaza will become a place where no human
Speaker 1: being can exist, also echoed the words a President Herzog.
Speaker 1: It's repeatedly underscored there should be no distinction between hamas
Speaker 1: combatants and Palestinian civilians, saying who are the poor women
Speaker 1: of Gaza. They are all the mothers, sisters or wives
Speaker 1: of Hamas murders. On the one hand, they are part
Speaker 1: of the infrastructure that supports the organization. On the other hand,
Speaker 1: if they experience a humanitarian disaster, it can be assumed
Speaker 1: that some of the Hamas fighters and the more junior
Speaker 1: commanders will begin to understand the war is futile. The
Speaker 1: international community warns us of a humanitarian disaster and Gaza
Speaker 1: and of severe epidemics. We must not shy away from this.
Speaker 1: After all, severe epidemics in the south of the Gaza
Speaker 1: strip will bring victory closer. It is precisely it's civil
Speaker 1: collapse that will bring the end of the war closer.
Speaker 1: So very clear there, this one is wild. I actually
Speaker 1: hadn't even seen this particular speech. It's really army reservist
Speaker 1: motivational speech delivered on October eleventh, sos a ninety five
Speaker 1: year old Israeli Army reservists. Ezrayakin, a veteran of a
Speaker 1: massacre during the nineteen forty eight Knachba, reportedly called up
Speaker 1: for reserve duty to boost morale amongst Israeli troops he
Speaker 1: ahead of the ground invasion, was broadcast on social media
Speaker 1: in citing other soldiers to genocide his follows while being
Speaker 1: driven around in an Israeli Army vehicle dressed in Israeli
Speaker 1: Army fatigues. Guys ready for this one. Be triumphant and
Speaker 1: finish them off, and don't leave anyone behind. Erase the
Speaker 1: memory of them, Erase them their families, mothers and children.
Speaker 1: These animals can no longer live. Every Jew with a
Speaker 1: weapon should go out and kill them. If you have
Speaker 1: an Arab neighbor, don't wait, go to his home and
Speaker 1: shoot him. We want to invade, not like before. We
Speaker 1: want to enter and destroy what's in front of us
Speaker 1: and destroy houses, then destroy the one after it with
Speaker 1: all our forces, complete destruction. Enter and destroy. As you
Speaker 1: can see, we will witness things we've never dreamed of.
Speaker 1: Let them drop bombs on them and erase them. Don't
Speaker 1: think you could get any more clear than that. And
Speaker 1: you can see the list of genisi id statements continues
Speaker 1: from there, and reportedly the Israeli planned defense for these
Speaker 1: comments is ah. These people are just talking. This is
Speaker 1: just populist rhetoric. Was the language that I saw reported
Speaker 1: in Israeli media, and that would be their case for
Speaker 1: why these statements should be disregarded. But it would be
Speaker 1: one thing if it was just random commentators, random you know,
Speaker 1: people on Facebook or Telegram or whatever. But when it
Speaker 1: is the Prime Minister, the President, various ministers, various current
Speaker 1: and former defense officials and on down the line, it
Speaker 1: becomes very difficult to say, oh, this is an official
Speaker 1: government policy, Oh this is just some fringe figures spouting off. Well,
Speaker 1: does the Prime Minister constitute a fringe figure? It seems
Speaker 1: to me like he is would be pretty fair representation
Speaker 1: of what government policy actually is. The last part that
Speaker 1: I want to underscore here for you guys is that effectively,
Speaker 1: to win in the temporary injunction emergency injunction that they
Speaker 1: are seeking, they don't have to prove that this is
Speaker 1: a genocide that's going on. They just have to prove
Speaker 1: that it is plausible that Israel is committed and is
Speaker 1: committing or capable of being characterized at the very least
Speaker 1: as plausibly committing genocide. So that's the standard. Here they
Speaker 1: go into legal analysis of the acts that are documented
Speaker 1: and how they are consistent with certainly a plausible reading
Speaker 1: of potential genocide, and that is the legal standard for
Speaker 1: these immediate measures. As I mentioned before, though the actual
Speaker 1: adjudication of whether or not genocide is being committed that'll
Speaker 1: take years, but this immediate temporary ruling could come in
Speaker 1: weeks or potentially months. So still, you know, if you're
Speaker 1: a Palestinian and Gaza who's starving and wondering if you
Speaker 1: are going to live to see the next day, I'm
Speaker 1: sure that still feels like an eternity. But some action
Speaker 1: is being taken, and I think that it is difficult
Speaker 1: to robut many of these claims just because it is
Speaker 1: documented by the UN, because it is being proclaimed loudly
Speaker 1: in the words of senior officials, and because we can
Speaker 1: all see the videos of what is unfolding before our
Speaker 1: very eyes. So you know, I guess that's why Israel,
Speaker 1: to go back to the first report you're talking about,
Speaker 1: is trying to put pressure on their allies around the world,
Speaker 1: thinking that maybe a political route is more likely to
Speaker 1: succeed than a legal route. But we'll have to see
Speaker 1: how all of this plays out. Thanks guys for sticking
Speaker 1: with me through all of this. Like I said, I
Speaker 1: encourage you to read the whole thing, because I do
Speaker 1: think it's useful to see what is being laid out
Speaker 1: here and you can decide for yourself, make your own
Speaker 1: mind up about whether or not you think they have
Speaker 1: made the case strongly enough. Sager and I will both
Speaker 1: be back in studio for a full show on Monday,
Speaker 1: so I'll see you then