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. But enough with that,
Speaker 2: let's get to the show. Good morning everybody, Happy Thursday.
Speaker 2: We have an amazing show for everybody today.
Speaker 4: What do we have, Crystal, indeed we do.
Speaker 1: We have some big breaking news to talk to you
Speaker 1: about this morning. President Biden on CNN last night saying
Speaker 1: he would hold some arm shipments to Israel if they
Speaker 1: launch a quote major invasion in Darrafa. What exactly does
Speaker 1: that mean? What are the implications, what are the reactions?
Speaker 1: A lot to dig into there. We also have some
Speaker 1: updates for you on the former president Donald Trump catching
Speaker 1: additional legal breaks.
Speaker 4: So we'll take a look at that.
Speaker 1: Meanwhile, RFK Junior it was revealed suffered a I guess
Speaker 1: you would say, rather unique medical conditionvolving his brain.
Speaker 3: And literal reworms. Yeah, not to joke.
Speaker 4: Every joke has already been made. It's literally true. Write
Speaker 4: that down Rio his response. All of that good stuff.
Speaker 1: Also really fascinating report and some new numbers about how
Speaker 1: there's been a nature population shift in the last several
Speaker 1: years out of cities and into rural America. You know,
Speaker 1: the question was after the pandemic, would that shift back,
Speaker 1: because we saw that during.
Speaker 4: The pandemic with the remote work boom.
Speaker 1: It doesn't look like it. It looks like this trend
Speaker 1: is kind of here to stay. So obviously that has
Speaker 1: huge implications, and we are really excited to be joined
Speaker 1: today by the UN Special Rappertur for Human Rights in
Speaker 1: the Occupied Territories. Francesca Albanize is going to join us
Speaker 1: for an extended interview. Obviously incredibly relevant to talk to
Speaker 1: her today as a potential invasion into Rafa Loom.
Speaker 4: She's been taking a look.
Speaker 1: Not only she published a report saying that there were
Speaker 1: reasonable grounds to believe Israel is committing genocide in the
Speaker 1: Gaza strip, but she's also been taking a close look
Speaker 1: at the humanitarian situation and the status of AID, what's
Speaker 1: going in, what's not going in. So really excited to
Speaker 1: get to talk to her and hear her perspective on
Speaker 1: all of these things today.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's gonna be interesting.
Speaker 2: To my knowledge, hasn't done a lot of interviews, especially
Speaker 2: with a lot of media outlets, and we've been working
Speaker 2: on this for quite some time.
Speaker 3: So that's gonna be fun.
Speaker 2: Before we get to that, though, we have interesting teas
Speaker 2: that we can give all of you counterpoints.
Speaker 3: Hosted another one of their debates.
Speaker 2: It will be dropping for premium subscribers tonight and it
Speaker 2: will be publicly available on Friday. But the important thing
Speaker 2: here is about what it was revealed. So it was
Speaker 2: Ilia Shapiro versus Glenn Greenwald on the topic of free speech.
Speaker 2: Those of you who may not know, Ilia Shapiro is
Speaker 2: a well known figure here in Washington, works at the
Speaker 2: Manhattan Institute, previously at the Cato Institute, a libertarian constitutional lawyer,
Speaker 2: but recently has taken very much of a turn to
Speaker 2: try and I'll just say this, he's taken a turn
Speaker 2: to go against some principles that I think previously would
Speaker 2: have rubbed up against free speech.
Speaker 3: I don't put that in the kindest way possible.
Speaker 2: Glenn Greenwald debated him also on the subject, specifically, not
Speaker 2: only around free speech, but whether the government and should
Speaker 2: be cracking down on organizations that are calling for ceasefires
Speaker 2: back in campus protests and all that.
Speaker 3: So we have a little teas that we can show
Speaker 3: all of you. Let's take a lesson.
Speaker 5: Glenn asked about Jewish Voices for Peace. That's a fact question,
Speaker 5: as lawyers would call it. This is why Attorney General
Speaker 5: of Virginia, Jason Miaris, among others, are investigating the various
Speaker 5: contacts between these organizations.
Speaker 6: And that doesn't bother you that Jewish Voice for Our
Speaker 6: Peace are being criminally investigated. This is righting attorney generals
Speaker 6: who love Israel. That doesn't bother you.
Speaker 5: Jewish Voices seems to me like the Holy Roman Empire,
Speaker 5: and that it's neither holy, nor Roman nor an empire.
Speaker 5: JVP is neither Jewish nor voices nor for.
Speaker 3: People cares what you think of their opinions.
Speaker 6: They have every right to engage in the American student.
Speaker 5: I'm not saying they should be prosecuted for their speech.
Speaker 5: I'm saying if investigations reveal that they're part of a
Speaker 5: terrorist financing network and organizational instructure, then they should be
Speaker 5: thrown off campus as a corporate body. This is not
Speaker 5: about the rights of students or what they're saying whether
Speaker 5: they should be prosecuted for that, and stop conflating those
Speaker 5: kinds of issues.
Speaker 6: No, but first of all, they have been thrown off
Speaker 6: many campuses, and the argument is the same theory that
Speaker 6: rondasantis use. If you accuse student student groups that are
Speaker 6: in favor of the propolicanting cause of being guilty for
Speaker 6: material support of terrorism, which is what you have to
Speaker 6: claim in order to justify banning them from campus. Otherwise
Speaker 6: it's such an obvious violation of the First Amendment free
Speaker 6: speech if you don't have another pretext. And that's why
Speaker 6: fire dot org took such great offense to what DeSantis
Speaker 6: did in other colleges as well. If you if you
Speaker 6: claim they're guilty of material support for terrorism as it
Speaker 6: grounds for banning them from campus, obviously you're accusing them
Speaker 6: of felonies. That's what material support. You're not allowed to
Speaker 6: give material support.
Speaker 3: Wow.
Speaker 2: Anyways, let's just say there's a lot more that came
Speaker 2: from this over an hour, so if you want to
Speaker 2: watch it and support the work the Counterpoints is doing
Speaker 2: in our expansion breakingpoints dot com. Thank you everybody who
Speaker 2: has been I think they've just been putting out excellent content.
Speaker 3: They have the Don Lemon thing, I.
Speaker 2: Mean, the Destiny debate was good, this in particular, So
Speaker 2: this is just more of what you can expect.
Speaker 3: And people are starting to take notice, right.
Speaker 2: They understand this is a place where we can convene
Speaker 2: things and they're really leaning into that. So congratulations to them,
Speaker 2: and thank you to everybody for supporting them.
Speaker 1: Yeah, thank you guys for making this happen. It's also
Speaker 1: cool now we're Monday through Friday. Yeah, I haven't watched
Speaker 1: this one yet. I'm very much looking forward to it.
Speaker 1: I'm less familiar with Ilia obviously. Glenn we know very well,
Speaker 1: and he's never afraid of a fight.
Speaker 2: No, he's and you know, CoP's doing it two for
Speaker 2: showing up. A lot of people won't do it, so
Speaker 2: I'll at least he at least showed up. It went
Speaker 2: up against Glenn, who you know, who's going to give
Speaker 2: it to.
Speaker 1: Me exactly whatever, Like whether you agree or disagree with Glenn,
Speaker 1: I think everyone respects his debating abilities, so to show
Speaker 1: up and rop your position, listen. Respect for being willing
Speaker 1: to do that. And I'm personally looking forward to having
Speaker 1: a chance to take a look. So, like Soccer said,
Speaker 1: if you guys want to get that early, it's going
Speaker 1: to drop tonight for premium subscribers. It'll be available for
Speaker 1: everyone tomorrow. With that, let's go ahead and get to
Speaker 1: the news of the day. So the big breaking news
Speaker 1: this morning, and this is quite significant.
Speaker 4: President Biden gave.
Speaker 1: An exclusive interview to CNN's Aaron Burnett last night made
Speaker 1: some big news. This comes in the wake of the
Speaker 1: revelation that the US had paused a shipment of two
Speaker 1: thousand pound bombs that was slated to go to Israel.
Speaker 4: That news leaked out.
Speaker 1: President Biden in this interview, revealing that he is saying
Speaker 1: if they launch a major invasion into Rafa, he will
Speaker 1: block additional weapons shipments.
Speaker 4: Let's take a listen to exactly what he had to say.
Speaker 7: I want to ask you about something happening as we
Speaker 7: sit here and speak, and that of course, Israel is
Speaker 7: striking Rafa. I know that you have paused, mister President,
Speaker 7: shipments of two thousand pound US bombs to Israel due
Speaker 7: to concern that they could be used in any offensive
Speaker 7: on Rafa. Have those bombs, those powerful two thousand pound
Speaker 7: bombs been used to kill civilians in Gaza.
Speaker 8: Have been killed in Gaza as a consequence of those
Speaker 8: bombs and other ways in which they go after population centers.
Speaker 8: And I made it clear that if they go into Rafa,
Speaker 8: they haven't gone on Raffa yet, they go into Rafa,
Speaker 8: I'm not supplying the weapons that have been used historically
Speaker 8: to deal with Rafa, to deal with the cities, to
Speaker 8: deal with that problem. We're going to continue to make
Speaker 8: sure because you're less secure in terms of Iron Dome
Speaker 8: and their ability to respond to attacks that came out
Speaker 8: of you the UH Middle least recently. But it's it's
Speaker 8: just wrong. We're not going to We're not going to
Speaker 8: supply the weapons and the artillery shells used that have been.
Speaker 9: Used artillery shells as well, Yeah, artillery shells.
Speaker 7: So just to understand what they're doing right now in Rafa,
Speaker 7: is that not going into Rafa as you don't.
Speaker 8: They haven't gone in the population centers. What they did,
Speaker 8: it's right on the border and it's causing problems with
Speaker 8: right now. In terms of with Egypt, which I've worked
Speaker 8: very hard to make sure we have a relationship and help.
Speaker 8: But I've made it clear to BB in the work Cabinet,
Speaker 8: They're not going to get our support if in fact
Speaker 8: they're going these population centers.
Speaker 1: So he says here they haven't gone into Rafa, which
Speaker 1: is a little confusing because they have. But now we're
Speaker 1: kind of adjusting where the redline was. Previous it was
Speaker 1: no invasion of Rafa. Then it was no invasion that
Speaker 1: didn't account for humanitarianism. Now it's no incursion into major
Speaker 1: population centers. So a lot of questions about exactly what
Speaker 1: this means Sager, but you know, obviously very noteworthy. We'll
Speaker 1: show you in a minute after I get Sager's reactions
Speaker 1: some of the already you know, freak out from the right,
Speaker 1: certainly total freak out from the Israeli side. Also very
Speaker 1: noteworthy that he says these two thousand pound bombs have
Speaker 1: been used to kill civilians, which raises the question also
Speaker 1: of okay, so if you knew that, why did we
Speaker 1: move Haaven and Earth to pass billions of dollars just
Speaker 1: a couple of weeks ago more in aid to ship
Speaker 1: more of these weapons that you are acknowledging have been
Speaker 1: used to massacre civilians?
Speaker 4: So what do you make of these comments?
Speaker 3: It's just sheer incoherence because it is.
Speaker 2: The State Department just yesterday put on permanent pause any
Speaker 2: report that would prove exactly what the President of the
Speaker 2: United States just said. There's no substantive difference between Israeli
Speaker 2: action in Rafa than there would be in communist or
Speaker 2: in Gaza City. So what you know, change has happened here.
Speaker 2: If anything, you've empowered the Israeli right, the Israeli military actions,
Speaker 2: We've reaped the worst rewards, not only of civilian casualties,
Speaker 2: but of international standing to Israel itself, to the United
Speaker 2: States and its international community, obviously domestic turmoil here at home,
Speaker 2: and now all of a sudden we seem to be
Speaker 2: changing things up as if they've been going. It just
Speaker 2: it makes very little sense and it actually sticks with
Speaker 2: Biden to me, which is its incoherent. It has no
Speaker 2: basis in actual like and stratage in terms of where
Speaker 2: things are going. There's a question too as to whether
Speaker 2: this is just being fed up over a hostage deal,
Speaker 2: whether this is posturing in terms of negotiation out look,
Speaker 2: I mean, I want to be clear and I want
Speaker 2: to say this. I do support withholding or conditioning aid
Speaker 2: based upon what the US does.
Speaker 3: That seems like a basic thing.
Speaker 2: But as we'll show you with some of our Republican
Speaker 2: neocons here in Washington, that is anathema. Whenever you're an ally,
Speaker 2: apparently you're owed anything that you could ever want from
Speaker 2: the US Treasury. Really only oh well, we'll get to that. Well,
Speaker 2: you know, no, that's a Ukraine Erasier crystal, of course,
Speaker 2: and that's important, you know, to try and to underscore this.
Speaker 2: So I would put this in the same way that
Speaker 2: Biden was on Afghanistan, where you know, he eventually decides
Speaker 2: to pull out. He does frankly and like one of
Speaker 2: the worst most domestically politically disastrous ways possible. Prior to
Speaker 2: that extends US troop levels in Afghanistan, but then it
Speaker 2: backs Ukraine to the hill. He just has no coherence
Speaker 2: or strategy in what he's being built upon. So I
Speaker 2: will at least endorse the idea of conditioning AID. Well,
Speaker 2: I support that, not just Asrael, by the way, all
Speaker 2: nations that the United States were to give to. So
Speaker 2: I don't know of a mixed bag. I wonder what
Speaker 2: you think about it.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean there's a lot to say about this.
Speaker 1: First of all, we don't even really know what I
Speaker 1: mean right, because he's out here saying like, well, they
Speaker 1: haven't gone into run.
Speaker 4: Well they have gone into profas.
Speaker 1: So is this red line any more meaningful than previous ones.
Speaker 4: We don't know. We don't know.
Speaker 1: Apparently, you know, the behind the receipt scenes reporting I
Speaker 1: was reading Peter Baker this morning the New York Times,
Speaker 1: is that the US wanted to quietly pause these shipments
Speaker 1: as a use of private leverage against Israel. The Israelis
Speaker 1: leaked the news in advance of Holocaust Remembrance Day. Apparently,
Speaker 1: this interview with Biden was it was intentional that this
Speaker 1: came after he gives the big Holocaust remembrance speech, once
Speaker 1: again painting all the college protesters, who he apparently agrees
Speaker 1: with in some respects as anti Semites. And so he
Speaker 1: does that, then he comes out and makes this announcement,
Speaker 1: and I think it just it's to be determined if
Speaker 1: it means anything.
Speaker 4: At all, I guess is what I would say.
Speaker 1: And there's also a lot of reporting, you know, people
Speaker 1: behind the scenes saying, listen, this doesn't mean that Israel's
Speaker 1: not going to get every penny of the whatever fourteen
Speaker 1: billion dollars that was just passed for it. He makes
Speaker 1: sure to say offensive weapons. So there's a limit to
Speaker 1: you know, in terms of how far he's willing to
Speaker 1: go in terms of conditioning AID, if that AID even
Speaker 1: is conditioned. So what is a major invasion? What are
Speaker 1: we counting as a population center? We don't have a
Speaker 1: lot of clarity with regards to any of that, so
Speaker 1: TBD whether this means anything at all, I think another
Speaker 1: you know, you just have to ask, like if you
Speaker 1: know that our two thousand pound bombs are being used
Speaker 1: to mass or civilians, which anyone who's looking at this
Speaker 1: conflict knows and has known for literally months. I mean,
Speaker 1: when was it that it got dropped on that refugee camp,
Speaker 1: killing hundreds of people to possibly maybe you get one
Speaker 1: Hamas fighters.
Speaker 3: I'm that in November that I want to say that.
Speaker 1: So we've known this for a long time. So the
Speaker 1: most obvious question is what the hell took so long?
Speaker 1: Most of the Gaza Strip is completely destroyed. Gaza City
Speaker 1: con unis just rubble.
Speaker 4: There's more rubble.
Speaker 1: Gaza is tiny, right, It's like the size of Manhattan basically,
Speaker 1: and there is more rubble in the Gaza Strip than
Speaker 1: there is in all of Ukraine. Okay, in a much
Speaker 1: shorter period time and a much, much, much much smaller
Speaker 1: land mass forty thousand Palestinians. We really don't know the toll,
Speaker 1: to be honest with you, dead all six hundred thousand
Speaker 1: kids in Rafa are injured, sick, malnourished. You've got babies
Speaker 1: starving to death, and so you just look at it.
Speaker 1: You're like, I'm with you, said, of course, yes, this
Speaker 1: is the correct position.
Speaker 4: What the hell took you so long?
Speaker 1: I think one thing we have to say is the
Speaker 1: protests seem to be putting pressure on them, like they
Speaker 1: seem to be feeling certainly the political heat from the
Speaker 1: protest movement across the country, from the fact that, you know,
Speaker 1: public opinion and especially Democratic opinion, is very much against
Speaker 1: Joe Biden on this. There's a new poll yesterday from ZTEO.
Speaker 1: Fifty seven percent of Democrats say yes, it's a genocide,
Speaker 1: only some twenty percent say it's not. Firmatively say it's not.
Speaker 1: So he's dramatically at odds with the Democratic Party. He
Speaker 1: knows this is a political problem for him. I think
Speaker 1: that's why this is happening right now. He is very
Speaker 1: reluctant to make any change in the unconditional support of
Speaker 1: Israel policy. And so I think you have to say
Speaker 1: that that political pressure is part of why you're getting
Speaker 1: at least this rhetorical shift, and what appears to have
Speaker 1: been more than a rhetorical shift at least in terms
Speaker 1: of pausing one shipment for now.
Speaker 3: I think it's possible it could be.
Speaker 2: I'm actually not sure how much it has to do
Speaker 2: with the domestic political pressure. I'm starting to think a
Speaker 2: lot of it could also be in terms of international pressure,
Speaker 2: because what we should remember is that Arafa c invasion
Speaker 2: cross and all that is a genuine demarcation point, both
Speaker 2: for Turkey and for Egypt, and so there is and
Speaker 2: has been a lot of leaking behind the scenes. I
Speaker 2: don't I think you might have seen this as well.
Speaker 2: Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Saudi Arabia used
Speaker 2: the term genocide for the very first time actually after
Speaker 2: the Rafa invasion.
Speaker 3: So there was the threatening of total.
Speaker 2: International isolation of the US from Saudi Arabia, from Egypt
Speaker 2: and from others. And the Egyptians in particular have been
Speaker 2: putting huge and tremendous pressure behind the scenes because it
Speaker 2: is a breach of the nineteen seventy two agreements. I'm
Speaker 2: not saying that domestic political pressure didn't have anything. It's
Speaker 2: a confluence events like anything else. I do think though,
Speaker 2: we shouldn't, you know, we should remember that the US
Speaker 2: position in the Middle East has been so degraded now
Speaker 2: at this point that this really could have been a
Speaker 2: genuine break, you know, to actually see a full on
Speaker 2: invasion of Rafa. For we already saw with the Saudis,
Speaker 2: which is a key strategic ally for the US, and
Speaker 2: obviously they've got their finger on the Opec oil and
Speaker 2: Biden doesn't want to screw with that. The Egyptians and
Speaker 2: the NATO, I mean, one of the things that we
Speaker 2: can't forget either is Turkey after the invasion of Rafa
Speaker 2: was announced, pulled all trade with Israel. It was a major,
Speaker 2: major point in terms of international politics. So I think
Speaker 2: that that was a significant driver of the fact as well.
Speaker 1: Maybe, but in my experience, the US response doesn't really
Speaker 1: care that much about international opinion or like, you know,
Speaker 1: what's out of like what the Egyptians saying, we fund
Speaker 1: them significantly to we give them a huge amount of aid,
Speaker 1: and certainly politicians do have a track record of caring
Speaker 1: about their own re election prospects. So don't know, like
Speaker 1: you said, could have been a confluence of factors. But
Speaker 1: I think the fact that the protests have become so heated,
Speaker 1: such a divisive issue within the Democratic Party, and that
Speaker 1: Democratic public sentiment has gone so aggressively against Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: public sentiment in general has gone so aggressively against Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: I would say, has to be considered as a factor here,
Speaker 1: you know, in terms of the response.
Speaker 4: Ryan made this point on Twitter yesterday, which is so true.
Speaker 1: Like Joe Biden has been the most pro Israel president
Speaker 1: I think in American history. I think it's hard to
Speaker 1: argue otherwise. At every turn he has given them everything
Speaker 1: they wanted, from diplomatic cover obviously, the weapons and the aid.
Speaker 1: He's gone out and gone with bb Netanya who's lines
Speaker 1: neraring college kids as Nazis. Like every step of the way,
Speaker 1: it has been the bear huck. And yet the minute
Speaker 1: that he even threatens to pause weapons shipments, even you know,
Speaker 1: to condition aid at all, everyone who's pro is Or,
Speaker 1: including John Fetterman, all of the Mike Johnson, Mitch McConnell,
Speaker 1: et cetera.
Speaker 4: They turn like that.
Speaker 1: I mean, he doesn't get any credit from them about
Speaker 1: the fact that he did unconditionally support them. It was
Speaker 1: the most pro Israel president that we've literally ever had
Speaker 1: in history. The Minity changes man that the knives are
Speaker 1: out for him. Let's put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: You've got Bill Ackman, billionaire's been just you know, causing
Speaker 1: all kinds of trouble and really involved in the whole
Speaker 1: campus situation, funded those violent counter protesters in UCLA.
Speaker 4: Says crazy. This is one of.
Speaker 1: The worst acts against an ally of a sitting president ever.
Speaker 1: Hopefully this means he won't be sitting for much longer.
Speaker 1: You've gotten Mitt Romney says, we stand by allies, we
Speaker 1: don't second guess them. Biden's dithering on Israel weapons is
Speaker 1: bad policy and a terrible message to Israel, our allies,
Speaker 1: and the world. So obviously that the you know, vehemently
Speaker 1: pro Israel crowd immediately turns on him, and as Ryan
Speaker 1: pointed out on Twitter, like the left progressives are never
Speaker 1: going to forgive him at this point, Like there are
Speaker 1: so many dead and so much destruction, it really doesn't
Speaker 1: matter what he does. You can't you can't undo the
Speaker 1: death and the damage and the trauma that has already
Speaker 1: been caused. So politically, you know, he's made his own bed.
Speaker 1: And the other thing that I point out too is,
Speaker 1: you know, day before he was basically painting Israel criticism
Speaker 1: as anti Semitic. So if that's your framework, and then
Speaker 1: the very next day you are yourself sizing Israel and
Speaker 1: you know, voicing some of the concerns that this protest
Speaker 1: movement is all about. Yeah, again, you've made your own bed.
Speaker 1: You've set the political framework that being critical of Israel
Speaker 1: in any way is effectively equivalent to being a Nazi.
Speaker 1: And then you you know, guess what happens when you
Speaker 1: then have to go and criticize Israel. The pro Israel
Speaker 1: crowd paints you exactly the way that they do these
Speaker 1: you know, student protesters who are on college campuses.
Speaker 2: Yeah, let me reiterate what Mitt Romney said. We stand
Speaker 2: by allies, we don't second guess them. Biden's dithering is
Speaker 2: bad policy and a terrible message is crazy. Get yeah,
Speaker 2: exactly how many Israeli troops served in Afghanistan?
Speaker 3: Anyone want to know? Zero?
Speaker 2: How many Israelly troops served in Iraq? Even though they're
Speaker 2: the ones who asked us to go in there. Zero
Speaker 2: how many is how much Israeli dollars supported the US
Speaker 2: Global War on Terror in both of those zero I
Speaker 2: can go on forever. I mean, where there israelly troops
Speaker 2: on the ground in Vietnam. No, it's like, what ally
Speaker 2: are we talking about here?
Speaker 4: Yeah, this is so crazy.
Speaker 1: This is the John Fatterman line, is like, it doesn't
Speaker 1: matter what they do, We're gonna support them no matter what.
Speaker 4: And it's like, that is insane. Even if you're just.
Speaker 1: Looking at narrow American interests, it's insane. Obviously if you're
Speaker 1: looking at morality, you're literally saying like, no, I don't
Speaker 1: think they're doing a gemside, but even if they were,
Speaker 1: I would still support them. Like what, how can It
Speaker 1: doesn't matter what they do, You're gonna send them whatever
Speaker 1: they want, no matter what. That is crazy, It makes
Speaker 1: no sense. And yet this is I mean, really, Israel
Speaker 1: is very unique. You might put Ukraine in the same category.
Speaker 1: I think Israel's very unique in people's willingness to just
Speaker 1: say nope, don't care, don't care how many civilians are
Speaker 1: just lotter, don't care that it's against her and just
Speaker 1: don't care that we've turned all of the Middle East
Speaker 1: against us, don't care that our troops are being fired
Speaker 1: on because of Israel's policy, our support of Israel's policy,
Speaker 1: don't care.
Speaker 4: It's Israel no matter what.
Speaker 1: Like you didn't you didn't swear an oath to Israel
Speaker 1: when you were born in as a United States senator.
Speaker 1: And but that's the way they act, like we're going
Speaker 1: to put their interest over American interests, setting it explicitly.
Speaker 1: I just it blows my mind, honestly blows my mind.
Speaker 2: I would be remissed if I didn't shout out of
Speaker 2: Jonah Goldberg. This is a gentleman, one of those never
Speaker 2: trumpers out there. He actually I have a personal beef
Speaker 2: because he implied I was anti Semitic whenever I said
Speaker 2: that the US military should only be used to defend America.
Speaker 4: That never happens.
Speaker 2: They never throw that flame around for what were I
Speaker 2: have heard from a lot of reliably anti Trump people,
Speaker 2: I mean really really anti Trump people have had it
Speaker 2: with Biden tonight. Anecdotal but very telling in my circle.
Speaker 2: So this is I mean, it was just digging about it.
Speaker 2: It's like Afghanistan, you know, which they also had dual
Speaker 2: loyalty to It's like one of those Oh that was fine,
Speaker 2: you know all these other things they supposedly stand for conservatives.
Speaker 2: I was, oh, that's just not a tumbbout Israel. That's
Speaker 2: the one where we got to turn. Let's go and
Speaker 2: put the next one up on the screen. It has
Speaker 2: some of the details that Crystal was talking about. Militarily,
Speaker 2: Actually there's some nificance here, but because we're specifically talking
Speaker 2: about the two thousand and the five hundred pound bombs,
Speaker 2: so it was eighteen hundred two thousand pound bombs and
Speaker 2: seventeen hundred five hundred pound bombs quote long seen as
Speaker 2: experts most likely to be targeted for any potential restrictions
Speaker 2: because not only how destructive they are in urban settings,
Speaker 2: but because of Israel's inability to actually manufacture or buy
Speaker 2: them for themselves. That's another thing that is not talked
Speaker 2: about enough here. Israel is a wealthy nation. Anybody who's
Speaker 2: ever been there, it's like being in California. I mean literally,
Speaker 2: they have universal health care, they have a crazy social
Speaker 2: welfare state. They have the ability to support a massive
Speaker 2: chunk of their population which does not work and is
Speaker 2: paid by the state to have children and pray all day,
Speaker 2: and you know, that's their society.
Speaker 3: They could do what they want.
Speaker 2: But I personally think that in the wealthy startup nation
Speaker 2: that they love to brag about, for anybody who's ever
Speaker 2: been there, you know what I'm saying, Well, they can
Speaker 2: pay for their own shit. Is that really such a
Speaker 2: controversial position. But as you said, Crystal, in the United
Speaker 2: States of America, that is a very controversial position to take.
Speaker 1: There was also a discourse really a while back. It's
Speaker 1: kind of a dead discourse now at this point because
Speaker 1: it's so like patently obviously false. But of this whole like,
Speaker 1: you know, well, Israel's their own country, and we really
Speaker 1: don't have any say over what they do, you know,
Speaker 1: like we don't really have any leverage. All these people
Speaker 1: who claim that we could just you know, on a dime,
Speaker 1: we could do something and they change their behavior.
Speaker 4: This is crazy. Clearly we do have leverage. Clearly it
Speaker 4: does matter.
Speaker 1: There's already reports and is there's really press about how
Speaker 1: dire it would get for them very quickly if we
Speaker 1: actually cut off all of these weapons shipments.
Speaker 4: They would be in a real bind.
Speaker 1: They have to make some real decisions about what they
Speaker 1: can and can't do, because remember they're not just in
Speaker 1: the Gaza strip. They're also taking actions in the West Bank.
Speaker 1: They're also you know, fighting on the Northern Front versus Hezbola.
Speaker 1: You know, they had the back and forth with Iran
Speaker 1: very recently that was started, let's never forget by their
Speaker 1: provocation of bombing an Iranian embassy building in Damascus. It
Speaker 1: really is important for people to understand all of this
Speaker 1: is allowed and enabled by us. It can't happen with
Speaker 1: on us, It really can't, it really can't, not just
Speaker 1: from the weapons, from the diplomatic cover. How integral were
Speaker 1: we shot down most of the Iranian drones and missiles
Speaker 1: that were headed to is Or. We shot down a
Speaker 1: majority of them. And that's why you know, this kind
Speaker 1: even though there aren't US troops involved, although US troops
Speaker 1: are coming under fire because of our support for Israeli actions,
Speaker 1: but even though it's not directly our boots on the
Speaker 1: ground in Gaza, we are so integral to this we
Speaker 1: allow this to happen. And so yeah, there's a you know,
Speaker 1: there's a full freak out about what it could mean.
Speaker 1: Even just the pause of these shipments, some of that
Speaker 1: freak out was was evidenced even after before or Biden
Speaker 1: made these latest comments, after it came became public that
Speaker 1: a weapon shipment had been paused. We have an Israeli
Speaker 1: member the Kanessa and Lakud official, Tollie Gottlieb, who had
Speaker 1: this to say. We can put this up on the
Speaker 1: screen and I'll read it. She says, the US is
Speaker 1: threatening not to give us precise missiles. Oh yeah, well
Speaker 1: I got news for the US. We have imprecise missiles
Speaker 1: and we have the right to defend ourselves. So maybe
Speaker 1: instead of using a precise missile and taking down a
Speaker 1: specific room or a specific building, I'll use my imprecise
Speaker 1: missiles and I'll just collapse ten buildings, ten buildings, That's
Speaker 1: what I'll do.
Speaker 9: She So.
Speaker 1: Just think about this, like, because you are withholding two
Speaker 1: thousand pounds bombs, precise weapons because out of accountability for
Speaker 1: our war crimes and the fact they've been used to
Speaker 1: bomb civilians, guess what our response is to bomb even
Speaker 1: more civilians.
Speaker 4: And you know, once again.
Speaker 1: A lot of discourse about what college students have to
Speaker 1: say about this conflict. This is a member of the Kanesse,
Speaker 1: a senior party official of Baby at Nyahu's party. This
Speaker 1: is a powerful individual, and she talks in a just
Speaker 1: brazenly atrocious manner and yes, genocidal manner about how she'll
Speaker 1: take down ten buildings.
Speaker 4: She doesn't care.
Speaker 1: And the gall of these people after all that Joe
Speaker 1: Biden has stood by you while you did, and the
Speaker 1: minute there's even a little bit of a critique, they flip.
Speaker 4: On a dime and they're completely indignant.
Speaker 1: Ryan Grim, our own Ryan Grim at the State Department
Speaker 1: briefing yesterday, asked Matthew Miller about these comments and pretty
Speaker 1: surprisingly actually got a response.
Speaker 4: Let's take a listen to that.
Speaker 10: Leave Lacuda official. Remember the Kanessa. She said this, She said,
Speaker 10: the US is threatening not to give us precise missiles.
Speaker 10: Oh yeah, well, I've got news for the US. We
Speaker 10: have imprecise missiles. We'll use it. We'll just collapse ten buildings,
Speaker 10: ten buildings.
Speaker 3: That's what we'll do.
Speaker 10: So she's threatening that if Israel is held accountable for
Speaker 10: war crimes, they will respond by committing greater war crimes.
Speaker 10: What kind of effect does that have?
Speaker 9: I'd say those decision making.
Speaker 11: Those comments are absolutely deplorable, and senior members of the
Speaker 11: Israeli government should refrain from making them. We will continue
Speaker 11: to make our policy assessments based on what's in the
Speaker 11: best interests of the American people, what is in the
Speaker 11: best interests.
Speaker 9: Of the region.
Speaker 1: Absolutely deplorable. I'm surprised you got a response, because usually
Speaker 1: all just be like, oh, I didn't see it, or
Speaker 1: we'll look into it, or you know, they shouldn't say
Speaker 1: bad things, but we support them, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 4: But he got a direct response.
Speaker 3: Yes, he certainly did.
Speaker 2: There's also this, This is my personal favorite, Crystal, I'll
Speaker 2: put this up please on the screen, is that the
Speaker 2: Israeli government is now warning that they they're warning the
Speaker 2: US that if you pause weapons, that will jeopardize hostage negotiations.
Speaker 2: So they're basically saying, if you take weapons away from us,
Speaker 2: then we will pull out of hostage negotiations, and we
Speaker 2: need those weapons to continue the war so we can
Speaker 2: free the hostages.
Speaker 3: Do you understand what I'm saying.
Speaker 2: Yes, it's a very interesting circular logic that we all
Speaker 2: have here in terms of the end result.
Speaker 3: I genuinely don't know.
Speaker 2: I saw It's von ben Gevier a tweet out this
Speaker 2: morning coromote quote Hamas Heart Biden, which.
Speaker 3: Is not pretty instinct.
Speaker 2: That's correct for a I mean a member of the
Speaker 2: Israeli government. I would not tolerate that from any foreign
Speaker 2: government who is a recipient of foreign aid if I
Speaker 2: were Biden. Apparently he's been tolerating things like that now
Speaker 2: for quite some time.
Speaker 3: But yeah, it gets me to the point of just like,
Speaker 3: who do you think you are?
Speaker 12: Man?
Speaker 3: Who again, who do you think you are?
Speaker 2: Yeah, you have armed weapons manufacturers in your country? No,
Speaker 2: you know you need us, So how about you shut
Speaker 2: your mouth and actually show us a little bit of respect.
Speaker 2: But that's their arrogance, that's who they are.
Speaker 1: Well, and we know where that arrogance comes from, because
Speaker 1: they've gotten away with everything up to this point. I
Speaker 1: mean every like everything that the Biden has expressed was
Speaker 1: a problem for him that he's asked to do and
Speaker 1: had these tough conversations and very tough conversations about they
Speaker 1: just did it anyway. I mean the strike on the
Speaker 1: Ranian diplomatic building that was apparently that wasn't cleared with
Speaker 1: the U.
Speaker 4: They just did it.
Speaker 1: And then you know, our have to drag our asses
Speaker 1: into this thing and shoot down the missiles, make sure
Speaker 1: that we're protecting Israel, etcetera, etcetera.
Speaker 4: So Biden has created.
Speaker 1: This climate of you know, just total brazen arrogance and
Speaker 1: indifference to what the you know, American president might think
Speaker 1: about things. He created that climate, and in terms of
Speaker 1: the discourse, he fueled that discourse as well. You know,
Speaker 1: how many times have we heard that, Oh, anyone who
Speaker 1: anyone who's out protesting against this war, against Israeli actions
Speaker 1: in the Gaza strip, they love Hamas, They're terrors, they
Speaker 1: are Hamas, they say, I am Hamas, et cetera. So
Speaker 1: when you co sign that branding of the entire movement
Speaker 1: as being pro Hamas, then don't be surprised when that
Speaker 1: rhetoric's used against you.
Speaker 3: Yep. I couldn't agree with you more.
Speaker 2: And the end results of this will all be very interesting.
Speaker 2: Will Biden stay the course, We'll see. He has been
Speaker 2: very stubborn sometimes in the past. He is also very
Speaker 2: willing to cave. Personally, I think he's going to cave.
Speaker 2: This is the strongest lobby in the history of Washington,
Speaker 2: in terms of his own the people who are around him,
Speaker 2: in terms of what the I mean think too about
Speaker 2: what the Israelies can mobilize for our own domestic politics.
Speaker 2: Like you may think, these campus protests and all that
Speaker 2: can make your life miserable. What's even more miserable is
Speaker 2: when all your donors and all these other people who
Speaker 2: are so into the cost start pulling money away and
Speaker 2: start exerting their influence.
Speaker 3: I could start and.
Speaker 2: Plus the media whipping this up, you know, into a frenzy.
Speaker 2: I wouldn't bet so bet. I would not bet a
Speaker 2: lot that he stays the course on this.
Speaker 4: Oh yeah, so tbd.
Speaker 1: What if anything these comments actually meant. Meanwhile, there's been
Speaker 1: an insane legislative response to, in particular the campus protests.
Speaker 1: The latest entry into this book as Marshall Blackburn, who
Speaker 1: previously said that student protesters should be put on a
Speaker 1: terrorism no fly list, she is now actually working to
Speaker 1: codify that, drafting legislation along with Centator Roger Marshall that
Speaker 1: would do exactly that. She talked about her plans on
Speaker 1: her Instagram. Let's take a listen.
Speaker 9: Here's what I believe.
Speaker 12: If they are foreign students and they're here on a visa,
Speaker 12: we will pull the visa and deport them. They will
Speaker 12: never come back in this country. If they're American students
Speaker 12: in their own student loans that are text Bay or
Speaker 12: funded by the way, let's pull those student loans. Anyone
Speaker 12: who stands in shouts I am humus. Then what they
Speaker 12: should do is to be placed on the terrorist watch list.
Speaker 12: If they're going to tell us they are a terrorist,
Speaker 12: we should believe them.
Speaker 2: And obviously the no fly list there actually pretty well.
Speaker 2: Because the thing is is that in that video Crystal
Speaker 2: she advocates just for foreign students, but actually, if you
Speaker 2: take a look at the legislation, we can put this
Speaker 2: up there on the screen, it would actually designate student
Speaker 2: protesters as terrorists and add them to the no filists.
Speaker 2: So this actually includes US citizens, a genuine breach in.
Speaker 3: My opinion of constitutional rights.
Speaker 4: Unfortunately.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but unfortunately, during the War on Terror, as we
Speaker 2: all discovered, being on the no filist actually doesn't technically
Speaker 2: violate your constitutional rights according to the Bush administration, the
Speaker 2: Department of Justice, and some Supreme Court litigation that unfortunately
Speaker 2: did not go the way that it should have. So
Speaker 2: this again actually demonstrates the danger of the post nine
Speaker 2: to eleven security state as it is then applied to
Speaker 2: US citizens and specifically actually in this case, because we
Speaker 2: are talking about people who are protesting in that case.
Speaker 2: I mean, I'm not going to defend the no filists
Speaker 2: of that time, but the justification was is that they're
Speaker 2: actively members of a.
Speaker 3: Foreign terrorist organization, right.
Speaker 2: In this case, like aiding and abetting the enemy, right,
Speaker 2: Like genuinely treasonous behavior. Again, it was the way it
Speaker 2: was applied diculous, and hence I don't support it. In
Speaker 2: this case though, we're talking about people who are protesting
Speaker 2: the actions of a foreign government then being labeled as
Speaker 2: terrorists and being included on the no filist Another thing
Speaker 2: I would point out to many of our right wing
Speaker 2: listeners is don't forget how there were no flylist was
Speaker 2: trotted out after the January sixth prosecutions and members of
Speaker 2: the you know Trump you know or whatever pro Trump
Speaker 2: MAGA people were also placed on the no fly list
Speaker 2: as well, debanked, and basically had the power of both
Speaker 2: the state and the non institutional parties or institutional non
Speaker 2: governmental organizations thrown at you.
Speaker 3: We're watching the exact same thing that's happened in play
Speaker 3: out right here.
Speaker 1: I mean, it is so clear that whyatt was so
Speaker 1: important to oppose things like this at the time during
Speaker 1: the War on Terror, because you could see the way
Speaker 1: even though the public was all behind it and it
Speaker 1: felt good at yeah, we're going to make sure these
Speaker 1: terrorists can't fly and we got to keep ourselves safe.
Speaker 1: Like it was very it was very understandable that the
Speaker 1: public had that sentiment, but you had to look at
Speaker 1: the details and say, well, how else could this be used?
Speaker 1: How is it being there's literally no judicial oversight of this.
Speaker 1: It's kept secret. Who's being even put on this list.
Speaker 1: Those were all massive problems and red flags at the time.
Speaker 1: And now the way that we see it's being used
Speaker 1: against American citizens who it would apply to, Like you know,
Speaker 1: these kids who are camping out on their campuses, they
Speaker 1: get charged with trust passing boom, you're a terrorist and
Speaker 1: you're on a no fly list. Like that's crazy. It's
Speaker 1: absolutely crazy if you look at if you look at that, Texas.
Speaker 1: That's not the only legislative initiative either. We didn't pull
Speaker 1: an element for this one. But I was just telling
Speaker 1: Soccer this morning. There's another bill that was introduced by
Speaker 1: Andy Ogles of Tennessee and Jeff Duncan of South Carolina
Speaker 1: and Randy Weber of Texas that would send college protesters
Speaker 1: to Gaza for six months if they, I believe a
Speaker 1: similar thing, if they, like you know, were charged with
Speaker 1: trespassing or some sort of like broken window or whatever,
Speaker 1: then they would be sent to Gaza for six months.
Speaker 1: And the thing that Andy Ogle said about this is
Speaker 1: like they wouldn't last a minute there, and it's like, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's their point, is that Gaza is under a massive
Speaker 1: assault and.
Speaker 4: People are being starved. Like if you.
Speaker 1: Support that, maybe you're the one that should be sent
Speaker 1: to Gaza. If you think there's rarely military is so
Speaker 1: humane and everything's all well and good and Gaza, perhaps
Speaker 1: you're the one who should go and tell us how
Speaker 1: great it is, tell us how much aid is going in,
Speaker 1: let us know how it's going there. So, I mean,
Speaker 1: just the climate is I've never seen anything. I even
Speaker 1: going back to the height of the War on Terror,
Speaker 1: I genuinely have not seen anything quite like what we're experiencing.
Speaker 2: I think the War on Terror was worse, you know,
Speaker 2: freedom fries and all that. Let's not erase some of
Speaker 2: the other insanity that happened at that time. The other
Speaker 2: thing we can point out to let's put this up
Speaker 2: there on the screen. And I guess what makes it
Speaker 2: crazier is that we're we are displaying significant similar levels
Speaker 2: of his area on behalf of a country and of
Speaker 2: a conflict of which we are not even technically the
Speaker 2: primary actor in.
Speaker 3: And I think that is what is so calling.
Speaker 2: Here we have from Jewish Insider House bills will ask
Speaker 2: the US Holocaust Museum to develop curriculum on the October
Speaker 2: seventh attack, creating resources for secondary schools and elementary schools
Speaker 2: to teach about October seven and subsequent anti Semitic and
Speaker 2: anti Israel sentiment. Now, the reason you should all be
Speaker 2: very afraid of this is because, unlike the Andy Oogles bill,
Speaker 2: this thing actually has a chance of going somewhere, and
Speaker 2: going somewhere, I think, well, don't forget the International Holocaust
Speaker 2: Remembrance definition of anti Semitism is the exact definition of
Speaker 2: anti Semitism, which was then passed through the US Congress.
Speaker 2: So this demonstrates very clearly that we would be using
Speaker 2: definitions outsourcing them to foreign organizations or non governmental organs.
Speaker 2: They should have a direct interest in protecting the State
Speaker 2: of Israel and pushing an agenda and then importing and
Speaker 2: putting that into US classrooms.
Speaker 3: Now, if we're talking about science, okay, that's.
Speaker 2: One thing, right, Well, we're talking about learning about a
Speaker 2: foreign government. First of all, why should like little kids
Speaker 2: even be learning about October seventh at all?
Speaker 3: Like, for what purpose?
Speaker 2: You know, whenever you're like sub eight years old, to
Speaker 2: the extent they should learn about October seventh. Yeah, think
Speaker 2: they should learn about autrocities, I guess all over the world,
Speaker 2: and maybe about what happened subsequently in US support and
Speaker 2: all of that. But we we don't even spend enough
Speaker 2: time on our own history of like Vietnam or World
Speaker 2: War One. I think we can spend a little bit
Speaker 2: less time on the histories of other places.
Speaker 4: I mean, listen, you probably hear this and you're like, okay,
Speaker 4: what's wrong with learning?
Speaker 3: No, you should have a problem with that.
Speaker 1: If it was going to be all right, we're going
Speaker 1: to we're going to take a look at this comp
Speaker 1: We're going to dig into the origins. We're going to
Speaker 1: tell you what happened so you can understand why this,
Speaker 1: you know, continues to persist in the nature of the occupation. No, no, no,
Speaker 1: this is not what you're going to get from this
Speaker 1: Josh Gottheimer bill. The bill requests the new curriculum include
Speaker 1: information about October seventh attack, how the history of anti
Speaker 1: Semitism contributed to the attack, not about the land dispute
Speaker 1: in the occupation and the blockade, but the history of
Speaker 1: anti Semitism, as President Biden said, the ancient hatreds and desires. Right,
Speaker 1: that's the only thing that led to October seventh. Okay,
Speaker 1: even though there were many non Jews who were killed
Speaker 1: on that day. By the way, it's also going to
Speaker 1: talk about the quote unquote spread of anti Semitism and
Speaker 1: anti Israel rhetoric on campuses, conflating of course, anti Semitism
Speaker 1: and anti Israel rhetoric and the spread of anti Israel
Speaker 1: rhetoric on social media. So we've got to also learn
Speaker 1: how TikTok was. You know, the real villain of October
Speaker 1: seventh was actually TikTok. So it's not like you're getting
Speaker 1: an actually factual understanding for our children of what led
Speaker 1: to October seventh, what happened on October seventh, what happened
Speaker 1: after October seventh. No, you're getting a it's like the
Speaker 1: Israeli government wrote the propaganda piece for our own kids,
Speaker 1: which in effect they basically are. Because I guarantee, if
Speaker 1: you look at these two individuals who are sponsoring this
Speaker 1: bill's contribution history, I would bet very strongly that they've
Speaker 1: received some I know, for a fat Gotttheimer. I don't
Speaker 1: really know the other dude that much, but that they've
Speaker 1: received some campaign finance that may have, you know, helped
Speaker 1: to fortify them in their pro Israel no matter what sentiment.
Speaker 4: Just a guess here, that's right.
Speaker 1: We are extraordinarily fortunate to be joined this morning by
Speaker 1: Francesca Albaniz. She is an international lawyer and also the
Speaker 1: UN's Special Rapperteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories.
Speaker 4: Welcome, it's great to have you.
Speaker 9: Thank you do so.
Speaker 1: To start with, I wanted to get your reaction to
Speaker 1: some breaking news from yesterday President Biden saying that he
Speaker 1: would halt some weaponshipments to Israel if they launched what
Speaker 1: he described as a major invasion into Rafa. Given what
Speaker 1: you know about the humanitarian situation on the ground in
Speaker 1: Gaza and in Rafa specifically, I wonder if you could
Speaker 1: speak to the significance of his comments.
Speaker 9: I welcome this decision.
Speaker 13: I wish it had come earlier because the situation in
Speaker 13: the Gaza strip is catastrophic, and of course all the
Speaker 13: more in Rapha, where one point five million people are amasked,
Speaker 13: including six hundred thousand children. The fact that there is
Speaker 13: no new shipment of weapons central Israel again is positive,
Speaker 13: although I understand that Israel's reaction has been that they
Speaker 13: will use.
Speaker 9: What I have.
Speaker 2: So one of the things that we wanted to get
Speaker 2: from you is just a broader discussion of some of
Speaker 2: the case that you had brought forward or had argued
Speaker 2: before before the ICC. So I'm wondering if you could
Speaker 2: give our audience, a US based audience, a view into
Speaker 2: some of the case that facts in the matter that
Speaker 2: you were able to discuss. Why you think it is
Speaker 2: important now in this context, even with the war continuing.
Speaker 13: Well, the ICC has jurisdiction over crimes of war, crimes,
Speaker 13: genocide and crimes against humanity, as well as the crime
Speaker 13: and aggression.
Speaker 9: I do not have the detail.
Speaker 13: Of how the ic C and the Officer of the
Speaker 13: Prosecutor are qualifying the crimes they might have found in
Speaker 13: the context of their investigation in the situation of Palestine.
Speaker 9: But I, as you might know from my.
Speaker 13: Latest report presented to the Human Rights Counsel of the
Speaker 13: United Nations. I think that the grounds to believe that
Speaker 13: Israel has committed genocide in Gada are there, so I'm
Speaker 13: anxious to tique the ICC proceeding with hopefully arrest warrants,
Speaker 13: of course, both against Israeli leaders and Hamas leaders for
Speaker 13: what has happened.
Speaker 4: On seventh over so Frantasica.
Speaker 1: In the context of your report, which found reasonable grounds
Speaker 1: to believe that Israel is committing genocide in the Gaza Strip,
Speaker 1: what Israel's defenders will say is they are working hard
Speaker 1: to avoid civilian.
Speaker 4: Casualties in Rafa.
Speaker 1: They leafleitted asking people to evacuate. They say, listen, what
Speaker 1: other country uses these sort of techniques to get civilians
Speaker 1: out of harm's way. That it is Hamas's fault that
Speaker 1: there has been such a high civilian death toll because
Speaker 1: they operate out of population centers and places allegedly like hospitals.
Speaker 1: What is your response to that critique of your analysis, Well.
Speaker 13: This is not what has happened on the ground in
Speaker 13: Gaza for the past seven months, and again we are
Speaker 13: talking of Uger half a year. All the casualties and
Speaker 13: the destruction seventy percent of Gaza has been destroyed. In
Speaker 13: terms of civilian infrastructure, including a livelihood, the essential livelihood.
Speaker 13: There is a total located that has been ongoing which
Speaker 13: prevents unfactored aid including water, of.
Speaker 9: Food, meditation, and fuel entering Gaza.
Speaker 13: This has been hampered over and over, and I reject
Speaker 13: the argument that they have tried to avoid civilian casualties
Speaker 13: because seventy percent of the victims of the reported victims
Speaker 13: of this conflict have steadily been women and children, and
Speaker 13: so this has been the situation that should have been
Speaker 13: addressed from the first weeks of the conflict. That there
Speaker 13: is another element to beta collected by many victims and
Speaker 13: survivors that have investigated over the past months, they said
Speaker 13: that since the very beginning they realized that Israel.
Speaker 9: Was after something else with this war because.
Speaker 13: They have seen Israel hitting indiscriminately symbols of Palestinian civilian
Speaker 13: life like universities, churches, again, essential livelihoods and hospitals. I
Speaker 13: also argue in the report that Israel has not rejected
Speaker 13: the allegations of the conduct that test taken place. They
Speaker 13: have differently qualified it, just defined it as in compliance
Speaker 13: with international Human Italian law, which I called you, which
Speaker 13: I call human Italian camouflash. Israel has justified by using
Speaker 13: international human Italian law jargon its military operations, for example, saying, yeah,
Speaker 13: but we ordered evacuations. The first evacuation was an evaluation
Speaker 13: order that the target at one point one million people,
Speaker 13: and it was said in an area that, by the way,
Speaker 13: comprised the twenty two hospitals, and they said, never remains
Speaker 13: behind will be considered a terrorist accomplice. And this is
Speaker 13: not the way to protect civilians. All the more Over,
Speaker 13: forty two percent of the casualties during the first weeks
Speaker 13: and months of the conflict where in area that had
Speaker 13: been identified as safe.
Speaker 9: This is very is very dangerous.
Speaker 13: It's an indication of how little precutions were taken. So
Speaker 13: the principle of distinctions between civilians and military and the
Speaker 13: principle of precutions were completed.
Speaker 2: One question I had for you was given that the
Speaker 2: US and Israel, the two primary I guess the participants
Speaker 2: on this side of the war, are not party to
Speaker 2: the ICC. Why do you believe that it was important
Speaker 2: to bring this case forward for your own participation if
Speaker 2: there isn't going to be any immediate enforcement on behalf
Speaker 2: of those two governments.
Speaker 9: Well, there is.
Speaker 13: A jurisdiction of the ICC over war happened in the
Speaker 13: Occupied Palestine and territory.
Speaker 9: This is under the jurisdiction of the board.
Speaker 13: And these suppolls squarely in also the interest of Israel,
Speaker 13: because Israel is the occupying power in the in Jaza Strip,
Speaker 13: the West Bank and the Jerusalem.
Speaker 9: So despite the fact that Israel's.
Speaker 13: Not a member, is not a party to the Roman Statude,
Speaker 13: it's directly affected by it.
Speaker 1: Francesca, I wonder if you could talk a little bit
Speaker 1: about the current humanitarian situation on the ground. There have
Speaker 1: been reports israel Is claiming that they've increased the amount
Speaker 1: of aid that is going into the Gaza Strip. On
Speaker 1: the other hand, you have Cindy McCain, the head of
Speaker 1: the UN World Food program saying that northern Gaza is
Speaker 1: in full blown famine and that is rapidly creeping south.
Speaker 1: What can you say about the current situation whether there
Speaker 1: has in fact been an increase in the amount of
Speaker 1: aid getting into Gaza, that.
Speaker 13: Any increase is in the margins. Again, that the situation
Speaker 13: in the Gaza Strip is beyond despair. This is the
Speaker 13: reality and I keep them saying it Israel disputes the
Speaker 13: figures that are provided by the United Nations. Well, why
Speaker 13: doesn't Israel allow independent.
Speaker 9: Monitors to enter the Gazza strips?
Speaker 13: Why Israel doesn't allow journalists to enter because of strips?
Speaker 9: This is the only conflict, if you want to pull
Speaker 9: it like.
Speaker 13: That, that has no foreign correspondence, And it's astonishing.
Speaker 9: The reality is dramatic.
Speaker 13: What I hear not only from the United Nations to
Speaker 13: human dire operators on the ground, but also from many survivors.
Speaker 13: It's catastrophic and I've seen it with my own eyes.
Speaker 13: VI's in hospitals in the region where there are especially
Speaker 13: those who have been evacuated from Gaza in the last
Speaker 13: two weeks and months.
Speaker 9: They are severely malnourished, especially the children.
Speaker 13: So there is no question that famine has hit parts
Speaker 13: of Gaza heavily.
Speaker 9: And the north, whatever is above.
Speaker 13: The White Gaza has been almost off limits to the
Speaker 13: entry obeyed. Whatever that has entered from the south has
Speaker 13: been in heavily contingent and so very very limited. But
Speaker 13: also it's impossible to deliver aid. This is something that
Speaker 13: ANA has announced over and over. I mentioned Ana because
Speaker 13: this is the agency which has the largest capacity to
Speaker 13: deliver aid in the in the Gaza Strip, and that's
Speaker 13: been humpered by the bombing, the continuous bombing which has
Speaker 13: never stopped, the huge destruction to infrastructure, including roads, and
Speaker 13: the danger that is sense. So especially now with the
Speaker 13: control that in Israel maintains over the Rapha crossing.
Speaker 9: The United Nations are already saying.
Speaker 13: That there is absolutely not enough aid that enters the
Speaker 13: You know, there have been at tents to deliver food
Speaker 13: from from the sea and from air. But I find
Speaker 13: it even a bit cynical, if you allow me to
Speaker 13: say so, because it does not say that's not been
Speaker 13: delivered according to humanitarian standards, to the no armed principle,
Speaker 13: and so it has been off as are the d
Speaker 13: and even even dangerous, even lethal in a number of
Speaker 13: cases because the air drop US peoples Francesca.
Speaker 1: As you know, the International Court of Justice is currently
Speaker 1: considering a courtesy of a case brought by South Africa,
Speaker 1: whether Israel is committing genocide violating those conventions in the
Speaker 1: Gaza Strip. They issued a preliminary finding that was widely
Speaker 1: reported and understood to be that they found it the
Speaker 1: case to be at least applausible. However, Joan Donahue, who
Speaker 1: just retired as president of the ICJ, recently spoke with
Speaker 1: the BBC and indicated this was not the correct way
Speaker 1: to think about this initial finding. Let's take a listen
Speaker 1: to what she had to say, and then I want
Speaker 1: to get your reaction and break down on the other side.
Speaker 14: I'm glad I have a chance to address that because
Speaker 14: the court test for deciding whether to impose measures uses
Speaker 14: the idea of plausibility. But the test is the plausibility
Speaker 14: of the rights that are asserted by the applicant, in
Speaker 14: this case South Africa. So the court decided that the
Speaker 14: Palestinians had a place pausible right to be protected from
Speaker 14: genocide and that South Africa had the right to present
Speaker 14: that claim in the court. It then looked at the
Speaker 14: facts as well, but it did not decide and this
Speaker 14: is something where I'm correcting what's often said in the media.
Speaker 14: It didn't decide that the claim of genocide was plausible.
Speaker 14: It did emphasize in the order that there was a
Speaker 14: risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian right to be
Speaker 14: protected from genocide. But the shorthand that often appears, which
Speaker 14: is that there's a plausible case of genocide, isn't what
Speaker 14: the court decided.
Speaker 1: Francesca, if you could help us understand what the Court
Speaker 1: did and did not decide in terms of this ICJ
Speaker 1: potential genocide case.
Speaker 13: Yes, I think the first all we need to understand
Speaker 13: that if there was no case to be heard over
Speaker 13: alleged to genocide and Gaza, the case would have been
Speaker 13: stopped in its trucks, just as Israel requested.
Speaker 9: Instead, the ICJ issued a preliminary of.
Speaker 13: Preliminary measures on the twenty sixth of January and another
Speaker 13: on the twenty eighth of March, and does not bring
Speaker 13: either the South Africa versus Israel, not the Nicaraguabus Germany.
Speaker 9: Cases that are still pending now.
Speaker 13: The twenty sixth of January orders said there is a
Speaker 13: risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian right to be
Speaker 13: protected from genocide. There risk can only exist if someone
Speaker 13: exclusively threatening that right.
Speaker 9: So it seems to me that there.
Speaker 13: Is a confusion over semantics. So the possible right at
Speaker 13: risk is the right and not to be genocided.
Speaker 2: So a bigger and more philosophical question. In your report,
Speaker 2: you wrote about the anatomy of a genocide. Could you
Speaker 2: define for us what genocide means I guess under international
Speaker 2: law and by the United Nations, and then give us
Speaker 2: some historical examples other than the Holocaust of what we
Speaker 2: should look to so that people can wrap their heads around.
Speaker 13: I'm glad you asked me this question, Slagara, because especially
Speaker 13: in the Western world, I find that there is a
Speaker 13: huge confusion over what genocide means, and there is of
Speaker 13: court and it should be so. I mean, the Holocaust
Speaker 13: should remain great in our memory, especially I speak as
Speaker 13: a European, and the Holocaust should never be forgotten, and
Speaker 13: what led.
Speaker 9: To the Holocausts should not be forgotten.
Speaker 13: At the same time, what constitute genocides is not established
Speaker 13: by necessarily by by presidents or personal opinion or personal experiences,
Speaker 13: painful as they are. What constitutes GENOCIDEY is established by
Speaker 13: Article two of the nineteen forty eight Convention on the
Speaker 13: Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and genocide
Speaker 13: is defined as a set of acts committed with intent
Speaker 13: to destroy.
Speaker 9: National, racial, ethnic, or.
Speaker 13: Religious group in a whole or in power art as such,
Speaker 13: and it includes a series of acts like killing members
Speaker 13: of the group, infliction of severe bodily or mental harm
Speaker 13: to members of the group, or the creation of conditions
Speaker 13: of life that would lead to the destruction of the group.
Speaker 9: To mention the three cases that I found relevant.
Speaker 13: In the case of side, of course, the treasury is
Speaker 13: very high because one is to prove not only the
Speaker 13: intent to commit to those crimes, but also the intent
Speaker 13: to come to destroy the people in all or in part,
Speaker 13: the protected group in all or in part through these acts,
Speaker 13: So the specific intent to commit genocide.
Speaker 9: The other example of history, we say history is replenished
Speaker 9: of store.
Speaker 13: Incidents and the cases of genocide. The very history of
Speaker 13: colonialism is replenished of genocide or ideology and practices. And
Speaker 13: this is something that we understand very well if we
Speaker 13: read the important literature that hasn't been left, including by
Speaker 13: Raphi Lenkin, the scholar who coined who gave the world
Speaker 13: genocide Francisca.
Speaker 1: Why would a finding of genocide matter from the ICJ, Because,
Speaker 1: as has been reported and has always discussed when this
Speaker 1: case is discussed, the ICJ doesn't really have enforcement powers,
Speaker 1: So what does it even matter what they do? What
Speaker 1: does it even matter if this term actually comes to
Speaker 1: be applied to Israel's actions with regard to the Pacadian people,
Speaker 1: specifically in the Gaza strip. What's your response to that
Speaker 1: on the potential impact of this case.
Speaker 13: Crystal, Your question is very important because while the ICJ
Speaker 13: determination in conclusions is critical to establish state responsibility over
Speaker 13: the crime of genocide, the Genocide Convention refers to the
Speaker 13: need to end the obligation to prevent genocide. I would
Speaker 13: like to say that the ICJ conclusions and measures, including
Speaker 13: provisional measures, are binding. So while the direct enforcement relies
Speaker 13: upon states, it's very important that the compass is established
Speaker 13: to buy the ICJ. Similarly important is the finding the
Speaker 13: investigation and the conclusions of national courts and the ICIC
Speaker 13: who then have the responsibility to identify individual criminal liability.
Speaker 9: But again, the obligation to.
Speaker 13: Prevent genocide is triggered by the risk that genocide is
Speaker 13: being committed, and for me, that moment was reached on
Speaker 13: the twenty six of January, when the Court is concluded
Speaker 13: that there is a plausibility of risk for the rights
Speaker 13: protected under the Genocide Convention for the.
Speaker 9: Palestinians in Gaza. Why is it important.
Speaker 13: It's important because in these instruments are and these mechanisms
Speaker 13: are the one leading to justice. But for me, the
Speaker 13: very existence of a convention which has in itself the
Speaker 13: obligation which is ERGA governments, applies to all member states,
Speaker 13: including those who are not party to the Genocide Convention,
Speaker 13: to prevent genocide. Giving the gravity of this crime is necessary.
Speaker 13: I mean, we cannot wait for the for the determination
Speaker 13: of the Court to prevent genocide, otherwise the genocide mind
Speaker 13: be committed.
Speaker 2: My question is, so the defense here in the United
Speaker 2: States by the Israelis is that mass civilian death is
Speaker 2: frankly just. I guess part and parcel as they would
Speaker 2: put it, of an urban military campaign. The Israeli defenders
Speaker 2: have been pointing to US and Iraqi military actions.
Speaker 3: In the city of Mosul.
Speaker 2: There have been previous comparisons to the number of civilian
Speaker 2: casualties who are incurred in the Second World War. How
Speaker 2: do you think about the difference between those two or
Speaker 2: three examples. What level of civilian casualty is accepted? How
Speaker 2: do you parse intent? Whenever you are writing your report
Speaker 2: and you're thinking, as you said, through the genocide conventions.
Speaker 13: I think that is the arguments that have been offered
Speaker 13: and that you voted for me are a way to
Speaker 13: divert the attention from what is happening on the ground
Speaker 13: and the need to have scrutiny.
Speaker 9: Over Israel's practices.
Speaker 13: This is not a case like any other, because Israel
Speaker 13: is the occupying power in the Gaza Strip and so
Speaker 13: should take the utmost precautions in ensuring that the occupied
Speaker 13: population is protected and is spared from the previous impact
Speaker 13: of any conflict. Now, and this is not the first
Speaker 13: conflict that has occurred in Gaza. This is the sixth,
Speaker 13: of course, the most the most valid. Again, I go
Speaker 13: back to the point that I said in the beginning
Speaker 13: the action that Israelist can have been indiscriminated and have
Speaker 13: targeted civilians, there is.
Speaker 9: No question about that.
Speaker 13: But this is something that I reflect from the very
Speaker 13: first days of the revengeful military operation against the Gaza Strip,
Speaker 13: because the very idea of targeting Hamas, going after Hamas
Speaker 13: considering anyone as a terrorist was very dangerous, was very blurred.
Speaker 13: Where is the distinction between the civilians and the combatants.
Speaker 13: We know that who can be targeted under international uanitary
Speaker 13: law are active combatants.
Speaker 9: So even a soldier, including Israeli soldiers.
Speaker 13: Cannot be targeted unless they are inactive combat and if
Speaker 13: they have surrendered, they need to be respected. They can
Speaker 13: be taken prisoners, but they cannot be executed.
Speaker 9: So there is a.
Speaker 13: Respect for the right to life in international humanitary laws
Speaker 13: in situational conflict, which is minimum, it's not absolute. And
Speaker 13: at the same time, this is the minimum threshold not
Speaker 13: to fall into complete brutality, cruelty and lack of humanity.
Speaker 13: So what has happened in Gaza is again Israel has
Speaker 13: justified inductions like okay, we have killed these many people
Speaker 13: because there were human shields. Where where is the evidence
Speaker 13: we know from the investigations that israelis in themselves. Israeli
Speaker 13: jornan Is carried out that artificial intelligence has been deployed
Speaker 13: up to the point that in order to target one
Speaker 13: hamas fighter or combatant and a risk up to one
Speaker 13: hundred people has been calculated. So there are being instances
Speaker 13: and documented distances like in Jovali, a camp where one
Speaker 13: of one hundred people were killed and one hundred people
Speaker 13: were injured just because there was one military.
Speaker 9: Combatant allegedly there. We don't know if in active combat
Speaker 9: or not was was present.
Speaker 13: Again, in the these are not precautions and it is
Speaker 13: not respectable princible distinction. So even if even if there
Speaker 13: was a legitimate reason to start the war against the
Speaker 13: Kaza strip, the weight it has been sorry, the way
Speaker 13: it has been conducted is absolutely against any basic principle
Speaker 13: of international law.
Speaker 1: We also have a lot of statements from senior Israeli officials,
Speaker 1: some of which you document in your report, some of
Speaker 1: which are documented in the South African case at the ICJ,
Speaker 1: that seem to indicate genocidal intent, talking about no one
Speaker 1: involves civilians, describing all everyone in Gaza as animals reference
Speaker 1: to Biblical anlek et cetera. How important are those statements
Speaker 1: from Israeli officials. Now what they would say is, oh,
Speaker 1: this is just heat of the moment, this is populous rhetoric.
Speaker 1: It's not actually being translated into policy. So how significant
Speaker 1: and consequential do you find those statements to be?
Speaker 12: No?
Speaker 13: Indeed, if we look at the international Jewish prudence, for example,
Speaker 13: stemming from the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia or Ruanda,
Speaker 13: we can definitely see that statements of victuals per see
Speaker 13: do not constitute to the hardcore evidence to prove that
Speaker 13: there is general side. In fact, what I claim is
Speaker 13: that on the one hand, there has been a look
Speaker 13: at the legal legal documents that have animated this or
Speaker 13: have led to this military campaign, but also what has
Speaker 13: happened on the ground, because those words that you have,
Speaker 13: those horrible words that you have mentioned in the beginning,
Speaker 13: have resonated, have reverberated, have been internalized and acted upon
Speaker 13: by soldiers on the ground.
Speaker 9: I mean, it's been really, really.
Speaker 13: Soul consuming heartbreaking to see the self incriminatory videos that
Speaker 13: Israeli soldiers themselves have posted on social media and see
Speaker 13: significant number of whom I verified, including the technical experts,
Speaker 13: where they claim to have his entire neighborhoods as a
Speaker 13: revenge against the ded animals who carried out the seventh
Speaker 13: of October attack, and they have often and quoted this
Speaker 13: language the camelekt. They have talked of the full destruction
Speaker 13: of Gaza, and soldiers have repeated we came here to destroy,
Speaker 13: to occupy, and to.
Speaker 9: And to settle.
Speaker 13: And this is something that again as they could, so
Speaker 13: powerful across the infantry that has been deployed on the
Speaker 13: ground that it is really scary m hm.
Speaker 3: One of the reasons that I.
Speaker 13: Think, let me say, let me just I think it's
Speaker 13: important to implement what I said in the beginning. So
Speaker 13: in order to determine whether there is genocide, we need
Speaker 13: to find the intent.
Speaker 9: And intent cannot be determined only.
Speaker 13: On the words and the ordal statements of policy makers,
Speaker 13: but can be can be inferred. And again, when there
Speaker 13: is such a nature, scale and patterns of conducts that
Speaker 13: speak to the same intent, and there is a reality
Speaker 13: and the capacity to carry out genocide, well this is
Speaker 13: where the intent to become puspicious and facious.
Speaker 2: One of the reasons that we reached out to you
Speaker 2: originally was a response from the US State Department where
Speaker 2: they appeared to imply that you were anti Semitic. So
Speaker 2: we have some of the comments here from the State
Speaker 2: Department spoke for sin Matt Miller, and we'll get your reaction.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 11: We have long, for long standing, for a long standing
Speaker 11: period of time, opposed the mandate of this special Rapporteur,
Speaker 11: which we believe is not productive. And when it comes
Speaker 11: to the individual who holds that position, I can't help
Speaker 11: but note history of anti Submitic comments that she has
Speaker 11: made that have.
Speaker 8: Been and made anti Semitic comments she has.
Speaker 11: And comments she made in December that appeared to adju
Speaker 11: justify the attacks of October seventh, So I think it's
Speaker 11: important to take that into account. But with respect to
Speaker 11: the report itself, we have made clear that we believe
Speaker 11: that allegations of genocide are unfounded.
Speaker 3: So we wanted to give you a chance to respond
Speaker 3: to that.
Speaker 13: Okay, First of all, the US has never considered this
Speaker 13: as always contested, like Israel, the value of this mandate,
Speaker 13: and this is something that precedes me and as little
Speaker 13: to do with my persona, while the comments of the
Speaker 13: spoken person had to do very much with my persona.
Speaker 13: And I was appolled when I heard that a senior
Speaker 13: US suficial could spread these lies, because there are lies.
Speaker 9: First of all, I've never ever justified. It's appalling.
Speaker 13: I've never justified the seventh of October attacks.
Speaker 9: I've said that.
Speaker 13: These acts were brutal, were criminal, and I have said
Speaker 13: that there should be an a There is an absolute
Speaker 13: need to have investigation and prosecution of those crimes. I've
Speaker 13: said also, we need to understand where this hatred comes from.
Speaker 13: What I have rejected is the qualification of those acts
Speaker 13: as motivated by antisemitism, because, first of all, there.
Speaker 9: Is no evidence of it.
Speaker 13: The second second thing is that there are is really
Speaker 13: scholars themselves who say that it's very responsible to put
Speaker 13: the burden of what has happened on alleged antisemitism of
Speaker 13: Palestinians because the responsal realizis Israel, and they put textualizes
Speaker 13: the horror that as the second place in occupied Palestinian terrory,
Speaker 13: territory for fifty six years, which might might have fed
Speaker 13: the hatred.
Speaker 9: So again I pushed back on this allegation. The allegation
Speaker 9: of antisemitism is.
Speaker 13: Repulsive, as disgusting for me is antisemitis. As a human
Speaker 13: rights lawyer, I'm engaged against antisemitism, against anti ISLAMO sorry,
Speaker 13: against Islamophobia, Arabophobia, any form of discriminations, including anti Palestinian racism.
Speaker 13: And what I really very much reject is that the
Speaker 13: allegation of antisemitism is used more and more to distract
Speaker 13: from Israel's responsibility, which is something that also not only
Speaker 13: betrays what antisemitism is, but creates new dangers for the
Speaker 13: Jewish people wherever they are. We need to distinguish what
Speaker 13: is Judaism and what is Israel's conducts. And I've always said,
Speaker 13: and I'm on record, I've always said any Jewish person
Speaker 13: is allowed to have all the feelings and love for
Speaker 13: Israel they want. What I stand against is the unconsctionable
Speaker 13: stance of governments in sheltering Israel accountability and which protracts
Speaker 13: its impunity.
Speaker 1: Well, Frantasca, I guess you can take comfort in the
Speaker 1: fact that you're far from alone and being labeled as
Speaker 1: anti Semitic for her views with regard to what Israel's
Speaker 1: during the Gaza strip. I'm sure you're familiar with the
Speaker 1: discourse here, including from the President of the United States,
Speaker 1: about the campus protesters that have You know, these protests
Speaker 1: have really taken off across the country, students who are
Speaker 1: calling for a ceasefire, calling for the US and their
Speaker 1: support for what they see, as you do, as a genocide.
Speaker 1: I wanted to get your reaction to Speaker of the
Speaker 1: House Mike Johnson made some very noteworthy comments on Holocaust
Speaker 1: Remembrance Day about these protests and the character of these protests.
Speaker 15: Let's take a listen to that the very campuses which
Speaker 15: were once the envy of the International Academy have succumbed
Speaker 15: to an anti Semitic virus. Students who were known for
Speaker 15: producing academic papers are now known for stabbing their Jewish
Speaker 15: peers in the eyes with Palestinian flags and with our
Speaker 15: survivors before us. If you close your eyes and the
Speaker 15: quietness of your own heart, you can almost hear the
Speaker 15: glass of Jewish storefronts shattered by stormtroopers. You could see
Speaker 15: fathers being executed at point blank in the ghettos. You
Speaker 15: can feel a brother's hand slipping out of his sisters
Speaker 15: as men in uniforms separate them into lines and they
Speaker 15: can only mouth to one another. Everything will be okay,
Speaker 15: hoping that would be.
Speaker 4: So, Francesca. At first, just to correct the record, there.
Speaker 1: Are no documented incidents of anyone being stabbed with the
Speaker 1: eye by a flag or any other thing. Just wanted
Speaker 1: to put that out there. But here you see the
Speaker 1: speaker of the house labeling American students, equating them to Nazis,
Speaker 1: very much echoing the rhetoric of Israeli President Benjamin Niaho.
Speaker 1: This has been used to justify quite an extensive crackdown
Speaker 1: and criminalization of these protests. I wonder what your reaction
Speaker 1: as an international human rights lawyer is both to this
Speaker 1: language but also to the response to these campus protests.
Speaker 10: Well, let me.
Speaker 9: React on the remarks.
Speaker 13: First, I find Speaker Johnson's remarks both in felicitous and
Speaker 13: in natury the comparative evolutions of college campus protests against
Speaker 13: c CRU's conducting Gaza because the people we are talking
Speaker 13: about to antisemitism, to the heinous of revolting antisemitism that
Speaker 13: led to the Hall of Us is not only historically inappropriate,
Speaker 13: but also functions to divert the attention from the subsubti
Speaker 13: issues at hand, namely the growing body of evidence regarding
Speaker 13: the atrospity grinds committed in Gaza that clearly this young
Speaker 13: generation globally across the world cannot stomach anymore.
Speaker 9: I also found that this is.
Speaker 13: A rhetorical tactic exploiting the memory of the Holocos, instrumentalizing
Speaker 13: one of the history greatest atrocities for contemporary purposes is
Speaker 13: unacceptable because it undermines the gravity and uniqueness of the
Speaker 13: Holocaust while simultanently obscuring the pressing concerns in the occupied
Speaker 13: palacy and territory. And I believe that as we aim
Speaker 13: to foster a constructive and respective, respectful discourse, it is
Speaker 13: crucial that historical comparisons are made with careful considerations of
Speaker 13: their accuracy and their implications, and going to the protests
Speaker 13: in US campuses, I can tell as a European this
Speaker 13: is spreading across the world anyone including I mean, I
Speaker 13: live in an Arab country, and everyone is looking at
Speaker 13: these young people as the most courageous and I do
Speaker 13: share the team, so I keep.
Speaker 9: On saying I hope that they stay peaceful and.
Speaker 13: Respectful and ixtalate any element that my represent a threat
Speaker 13: to anyone in the university. But I also want to
Speaker 13: say that there are many Jewish students among them. And again,
Speaker 13: and this is what gives me hope that the new
Speaker 13: generation doesn't buy anymore what has been.
Speaker 9: The narratives are sold by leadership and nowadays.
Speaker 1: Francesca Albany, is you on special rappator. Thank you so
Speaker 1: much for taking some time with us this morning. We're
Speaker 1: extremely grateful and now you're very busy.
Speaker 2: Thanks for your time. Thank you, Thank you guys so
Speaker 2: much for watching. We really appreciate it for supporting us.
Speaker 2: Make sure you go and sign up breakingpoints dot com.
Speaker 2: You can get early access to the Counterpoints debates and
Speaker 2: support some of the work there and help US interview
Speaker 2: you an officials. That's the first one for me, so
Speaker 2: thank you all very much. Otherwise, we'll see you all
Speaker 2: next week.