 Give the people what they want. Give the people what they want. Give the people what they want. Your weekly movement news roundup. You're with Give the People What They Want, brought to you by People's Dispatch, that's Zoe and Prashant. I'm Vijay from Globe Trotter. Today is the 26th of January. Happy Republic Day, an amazing day in India in 1950 when the constitution, a very important legal document passed the Indian parliament and pushed aside most of, but not all, the colonial laws, a number of colonial laws remained on the books. But Republic Day, 26th of January, monumental day in India, also the day of course when farmers across India continue to get on their tractors and ride across the country saying, we are Indians too. Well, the International Court of Justice made a very important landmark ruling, provisional measures on behalf of the Government of South Africa which had brought a case to the Hague, a dispute that South Africa had with the Government of Israel. South Africa alleged in its 84 page submission that the Government of Israel was conducting a genocide against the people of Palestine. That was the contention in the document put forward by the South Africans. The Israelis responded saying, there's no genocide, a mass is to blame for whatever atrocities there are. Well, the court has now spoken, these are provisional measures. This is not a judgment based on a trial. In these provisional measures, the court has said that there is plausible evidence of genocide. That is sufficient to say that they have stood with the South African brief. They provided a 29 page response to both South Africa and to Israel. Key number one, there is plausible genocide. This is very important. Number two, article 78, paragraph 78 of the 29 page declaration calls upon the Government of Israel. And this is very important to pay attention to. In this order, calls upon Israel to take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of article two of this convention, which is the 1948 Genocide Convention. In particular, killing members of the group, serious bodily harm or mental harm to members of the group, deliberately inflicting on the group, conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. And number four, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group. In other words, if you read this carefully, paragraph 78, it is calling upon the Government of Israel to secede all hostilities against the Palestinians. In other words, without using the phrase secession of hostilities, without using the word ceasefire, what the International Court of Justice is now sent to the UN Security Council to enforce is a demand that Israel plausibly committing genocide against the Palestinians sees hostilities now. That is indeed what they have called for. Number of the judges, the 15 regular judges, the Israeli judge and the South African judge. A number of these judges have made their own statements into the record in the court. Judge Xu from China, very important statement. Judge Xu used to be the vice president of the court. Her statement, very interesting. The fourth paragraph of her statement says that over 60 years ago, the governments of Ethiopia and Liberia instituted legal proceedings against South Africa for its breach of the mandatory pass in Southwest Africa. This is regarding today's Namibia. So Ethiopia and Liberia said, Judge Xu came into the court and said, listen, you are violating the mandatory powers given you in Southwest Africa today's Namibia. And then Judge Xu said the court rejected the standing of those two applicants for lack of legal interest in the case. In other words, at that time 60 years ago, the International Court of Justice closed the doors on Liberia and Ethiopia saying, you don't have any room here to make a claim against South Africa. There is no legal interest in the case. Then Judge Xu writes, this denial of justice gave rise to strong indignation of the member states of the United Nations against the court, severely tarnishing its reputation. It's a very important memory that Judge Xu brings into the discussion. What she has essentially said by writing this is that now the court is not going to shut the door on South Africa's claim against Israel saying that there is no legal interest in the case. Indeed, the opposite. There is legal interest in the case and the legal finding from the International Court of Justice is plausibility of genocide number one and all acts leading to genocide must be suspended. This 29-page judgment now goes to the UN Security Council for enforcement. Let's see what happens. But Prashant, as I said, 15 permanent judges all appointed by the UN Security Council, plus because there are plaintiffs in the case, Israel, and plus because there are claimants in the case, South Africa, 17 judges, a number of them wrote their own, you know, findings into the record. One of them was the judge from India. They were in the Bhandari. Mr. Bhandari has had a quite distinguished career in the Indian bar. Here he is sitting at the International Court of Justice. His piling indicates why there might have been some hesitation in the final 29-page document. Take us through a little bit, Prashant, what Judge Bhandari said. Right, Vijay. Dalveer Bhandari's statement is quite interesting. Multiple reasons. One, of course, the fact that, you know, he, the last point in his statement is the most interesting one where he actually calls for an immediate ceasefire. And it's something that the court as a whole has not called for, of course, and some commentators have pointed it out. But nonetheless, in his case, there is a definite call for an immediate ceasefire. The exact words basically being that all participants in the conflict must ensure that all fighting in hostilities come to an immediate halt. And the remaining hostages also released forthwith. Very important to note that. Also his other statement being the fact that, you know, what facts have been placed before the court right now are not essential to sort of make a final conclusion that this is a trial process that's still going on. It'll take some time. But nonetheless, the facts that are presented before the court lead him to make that conclusion, which really is an interesting point to make. And I think it also sort of, you know, brings into question the larger issue that is there, which is that there's a certain hypocrisy, especially among Western countries, among countries of the global North, where time and again they talk about the ceasefire in very loaded terms. For instance, we have David Cameron visiting UK's foreign secretary, David Cameron actually visiting the region where he talks about an eventual ceasefire. But an event by eventual ceasefire, what he means is basically exactly what Israel means. You know, he means that Hamas has to be somehow overthrown. Some kind of a reconstituted Palestinian authority must be placed back in place in Gaza. And that is according to him what constitutes an eventual ceasefire. So there is a clear line that is drawn between what people are calling for in terms of a halt in fighting and this kind of hypocritical statements on what an eventual ceasefire is an eventual halt is. So I think it's an interesting statement that it makes. But overall, I think also, if you look at the court's overall statement, the overall proceeding, the final judgment that has come out, two things that are very important to note. I think one is that it completely rubbish is completely demolishes Israel's claim that the ICJ has no right to rule on this, I think which is a very important point to note and that is if you looked at the earlier proceedings from South Africa's side, from the side of the international community, there was a very strong push about some of these arguments in Israel's response was to almost nonchalantly say that this is not something for the ICJ to rule on which by definition means that this is not something for the international community to be involved in. This is our issue, we are fighting in self-defense, etc., etc. And I think that argument has been completely torn into shreds by the ICJ where it has said that it has jurisdiction. And the other thing I think many commentators are pointing out is that this kind of poses a question before many countries and I think we will come to that next regarding what they need to do to sort of prevent because in some senses many countries, all countries across the world are put to notice by this kind of a judgment because clearly the ICJ has said that this is a matter to be considered, we will of course decide on it later but we are not dismissing the case on the ground which Israel has said which is that this is purely our internal matter, this is purely a matter of our self-defense. So I think while the court may not have ordered a full immediate ceasefire as South Africa may have wanted, the way it is framed as judgment automatically makes it clear that Israel's PR mechanism all these months which has been completely supported by the United States by the United Kingdom, so many of the western allies that this is a war in self-defense, this is an internal matter, this is a fight against terrorism, all that has been completely blown into pieces and I think this is, that probably is the biggest take away from this judgment because those arguments really no longer stand. Not only do they no longer stand but your statement about putting other governments on notice is very important. Firstly, if I were Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu, Mr. Isaac Herzog and others, I would worry because the court judge somewhere might apply universal jurisdiction and call for the arrest or indeed if there is sufficient pressure now down the road at the international criminal court the special prosecutor there unlikely that he lack might frame warrants for the individuals who are conducting the genocide. Once the genocide trigger has been pulled any number of things could happen and I think against individuals arrest warrants for them all on the table Zoe will other countries now move and how have they reacted to this judgment? Well, I'll say first that the reaction from Israeli officials has been kind of complete rejection of the findings, you know really holding on very tightly to this idea of Israel's right to self-defense as Prashant mentioned which has essentially been destroyed by these court findings and by South Africa's case you know Itamar Ben-Gavir who's famously the far right minister of security that even before October 7th had been implementing atrocious policies to violate especially Palestinian prisoners human rights and he treated Hayek Shmig so I think there is on one hand the sense of international law still doesn't apply to us we're above the law we'll do what we want but I think that you know on the other hand they're of course rejecting this this ruling because they know that it will have implications and as you mentioned you know ruling this you know this ruling that essentially classifies it as genocide will open the door for more ICC possibilities we already know many countries have referred the case the ICC this will definitely have a snowball effect it will give more momentum behind these we've seen world leaders across the world whose countries actually endorsed South Africa's case and publicly supported it such as Colombia as soon as the ruling came out the president of Colombia Gustavo Pedro had an extremely long tweet saying this is a triumph of humanity so I think that you know in a sense many people said that not only was Israel on trial but as you mentioned before really it's the ICJ in these international instruments and that the people of the global south also don't want to see this instrument just kind of destroyed by imperialism and by their ability to influence and to kind of bypass any sort of a sense of legal accountability and responsibility so you know Naledi Pandora said that she had actually traveled herself the foreign minister of South Africa had also gone to the Hague to hear this results announced she said that she was quite pleased by the results and this was of course justice being done she too noted that the lack of the clear definition of calling for ceasefire was lamentable but that actually in implementing the provisional measures that are outlined and the ones that were called for by the court there has to be a cessation of hostilities they actually cannot implement those provisional measures and continue to carry out the genocide they're carrying out so I think that's really important to note and again I think that people are definitely breathing a sigh of relief there is again especially with the counterbalance of the ICC being this essentially useless as it's seen by many especially in the case of Palsen in Israel given the prosecutor his complete lack of remorse and accountability to the Palestinian people but I think this is another boost in saying okay people there can be justice in that the fact that this case was laid out for the entire world to hear and to see and the detail with which South Africa laid out all of these different crimes from small remarks to radio presenters, television presenters all these different things that in essence actually constitute this entire sphere and this entire kind of body of work of what a genocide is it's not just the bombing it's not just one person statement it's all of these different things that they were able to actually capture in their case so again it is I think many people are seeing this as a very important symbolic victory and hopefully an effective one I think Special Prosecutor Karim Khan at the International Criminal Court will have to read this judgment very very carefully not to be trifled with the International Court of Justice has come in and said there is plausible evidence of genocide conducted by the Israeli government against the Palestinian people I think that is itself a landmark ruling then as I said paragraph 78 comes the measures that they call for all very important including everything that amounts to a cessation of hostilities let's see how the UN City Council reacts meanwhile you're listening to give the people what they want brought to you by people's dispatch that Zoe and Prashant and Vijay from Globetrotter we've been looking further afield from Gaza itself particularly out in Yemen out in Lebanon out in Jordan in Egypt protests around the situation in Gaza Prashant this is already a regional war in many ways Prashant it has always been a regional war from 1948 this has been a regional conflict what is going on now in places like Yemen and so on right so what we see actually throughout the region is this upswell of resistance against what Israel has been doing and more importantly or at least equally importantly US complicity in this whole process and I think that's really the kind of frontline that is really emerging here in every country in the region you mentioned of course Lebanon there is Iraq very important country there is Yemen Syria for that matter in all these countries I think the fundamental frontline that is really emerged is the opposition the sheer anger against the Israeli genocidal process and the US complicity in it and that is kind of playing out in multiple confrontations that are taking place ago the Houthis did attack US convoy that is there now that they have said that US and UK ships are also legitimate targets there was an attack on some of these ships there is no reporter directly hitting those ships but the impact was nonetheless very close and the US of course responding in its usual way with attacks but this also goes to show I think that the whole Red Sea region the Babelman region has now become a flashpoint and while the Houthis and while Ansar Allah the Yemeni army might relatively weaker and even vulnerable to the kind of US strikes that are taking place nonetheless they do have a very powerful position with which they are able to threaten shipping in that whole region already we know that there has been a substantial economic impact many ships being forced to take the Cape of Good Hope route Israeli ports for instance suffering in that whole economic decline because of that so while they are militarily weaker nonetheless the fact remains that the Yemeni people are strengthening a very very strong message at this point of time and the attempts by the US and their allies to paint this as some kind of attack on freedom of navigation or piracy are really not working because you know like I said you would like to verdict all this make it really clear that this is not about some you know a group of people which is really how they want to communicate but Yemen is just one country we know that in Iraq for instance the militias a number of militias have been conducting consistent attacks on US bases in the region now this connects to the larger issue which is that the people of Iraq the parliament of Iraq for instance has earlier in a couple of years ago actually demanded the US troops withdraw there has been a general understanding that the US troops should not be there in Iraq but they continue to be there so how these attacks will accelerate this process is a really important question will the United States have the will to continue this deployment there when they are going to be facing these consistent attacks when there is little support for their presence in the country anyway but the opposition against them has actually further intensified with Israel's attack and their support of it so and of course a similar situation in Syria as well so I think across the region we are seeing both armed means and through non-armed means a general anger against you know both Israel and its backers we saw a survey a couple of weeks ago very interesting survey which kind of talked about you know how people across the region view normalization how people across the region view the roles of countries such as United States and France and especially in the past three months there has been a steep decline in approval ratings so to speak for many of these countries so I think of course on the one hand there is this war brutal war taking place but it's undoubted that this war is going to shake up the region as a whole even governments of many of these countries are having way more difficult decisions to make regarding the path they want to go ahead is it going to be that easy to go forward with normalization is it going to be that easy to remain client states the United States definitely not it's a tough tough situation of course there are fault lines developing around the world people sensitive people around the world hearts sick about what's happening in Gaza meanwhile the far right somehow continuing to find a way to stand with with Israel this week at globetrotter I had a piece from an interview with Sarah Wagenek and Sevim Dagdalan who recently launched a political party breaking with Dillinker in Germany their idea is must have a robust left in Germany to confront the far right the main lines of difference are around war and inflation and to some extent immigration Zoe these are the issues that the far right in Germany the alliance for Deutschland has been putting on the table Sarah Wagenek told me we are going to contest every single voter that votes for alliance for Deutschland bring them to our right yet real danger the far right rising Germany United States other countries tell us about it well it's interesting it is a tale as old as time and even the far right even uses the same tricks and so this this idea of the the menace of the other and the immigrant the outsider is coming to the foreign in an even bigger way but it of course is an age old trope that's been used by the far right throughout history but we're seeing it right now in a very important way in Germany in countries across Europe of course we covered the elections in the Netherlands when you know the the far right candidate and the far right party which actually gains the majority this this main issue of immigration and kicking out all immigrants and having this extreme position against immigration is kind of the dominant part of their policy this week there were mass protests in cities across Germany because the alternative for Germany AFD had essentially there had been a meeting back in November with members of these parties some think tanks essentially hatching a plot to deport on mass immigrants from Germany a plot to keep them out and to deport them and this was revealed by an investigative report by a German media outlet published and people were outraged by of course these findings saying that there are real people who are in power have political power and are actually plotting to take this forward it seems really like something you would see in Germany a hundred years ago perhaps but it's today and this is really mirrors the situation that we're seeing in the United States right now that people are following the Republican primary process Trump is it seems like quite clear that Trump is going to win the primaries on the other hand we have genocide Joe whose approval ratings are essentially at the floor he's constantly getting heckled because he's unable to do you know one progressive thing in these four years he's president and the threat of a Donald Trump presidency is actually quite serious he too promises to deport millions of immigrants his plan is to kind of root out the scourge in the United States whether it's the communists whether it's you know the leftist he says the fascist and deport the immigrants from the United States and so this real comeback of this extreme extreme xenophobic anti-immigrant politics is actually quite prominent today in both countries and I think in countries across Europe this sentiment is even rising in countries like Latin America which didn't historically have a large amounts of immigration but of course due to some of the regional conflicts some of these countries have seen influx for example of Haitian immigrants these age old sentiments to blame of course the inevitable crises of capitalism on immigrants it seems like the left is still unable to grapple with this challenge of how do we address this and how do we actually come up with a proper response where working people are not turning their anger against immigrants and so this is serious and in Germany there's going to be a massive anti-fascist mobilization on February 3rd again I think at the same time when we see this rise of the new party that actually wants to take this issue seriously we have to ask ourselves the same question in the United States and in really in countries across the world how to grapple with this question and how to fill up this vacuum that the far right is actually coming into we're going to see in the coming months who actually emerges victorious in these republican primaries but again this issue won't go away there's a lot of fired up people who are behind Trump who are behind this platform and it's definitely there well that's the situation inside the United States in Germany after the Iowa primary that night Donald Trump took to the stage and says there's too much war going on in the world I'm going to put a stop to all of it I didn't actually make reference to which was he was talking about I'm not sure that he would if he were president involve himself on the side of the Palestinians after all he was the one who pushed the Abraham Accords and so on but maybe he would he was thinking about the one Ukraine it's likely he was thinking about that one that is having major negative effects inside Europe favoring a sense of despair as prices rise and so on on Monday something took place in the Belgorod region in Ukraine it's really quite stunning what happened in Russia sorry in the Belgorod region in Russia near the Ukrainian border a stunning event took place a Russian military transport plane was flying with 74 people on board 65 of them were Ukrainian prisoners of war that Russia was sending back to Ukraine in a prisoner swap a missile struck that plane and all 74 were killed this incident was then taken by the Russians to the United Nations Security Council now I must say parenthetically that the incident actually was not really talked about much in many parts of the world it's not really something people paid attention to on the other hand it's pretty serious a missile striking a Russian aircraft in Russian airspace before it crosses into Ukrainian airspace on a mission to take Ukrainian soldiers prisoners of war back to Ukraine anyway this was brought to the attention of the international community there were murmurs about it at the UN Security Council there was a pretty serious discussion the undersecretary gave a presentation but there were no condemnations from anybody about it in fact all that has been decided and I think this is an important decision it shouldn't be brushed aside is for an investigation whose missile struck a Russian military aircraft inside Russian territory to bring down 74 people killed them including 65 Ukrainian prisoners of war was it a Ukrainian missile was it a Russian missile accidentally fired on a Russian military plane this is the kind of thing that needs to be investigated but I must say since the conflict in Syria investigations of things like allegations of war crimes have been very poorly conducted by international organizations or if they are well conducted their findings have been politicized deeply politicized this I am referring directly to the chemical strikes in Syria where there was an international technical assessment done of it its findings were politicized dismissed indeed by the United States and its allies so whether there will be an investigation or not is to be seen whether that investigation will have findings that are taken seriously is to be seen but interestingly whether the missile was Ukrainian Russian Polish whoever's missile it was it would actually behoove countries to say well look this is a terrible thing even that statement was not made this is where we are in the conflict in Ukraine it's a little bit like world war one when the troops were stuck at each other's trenches unable to advance and there was a kind of silent war going on people still dying there was no reflection on how to get out of this morass the international court of justice opened the door to something like the possibility of pressure on Israel to stop the hostilities no such pressure for negotiation between Russia and Ukraine you are listening to give the people what they want brought to you from People's Dispatch Zori and Prashanta here I am Vijay from Globetrotter see you next week