 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, Hamas 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 or paragraph 78 of the 29-page declaration calls upon the government of Israel. 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, causing 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's 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 findings into the record. One of them was the judge from India, Mr. Bandari 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 Bandari said. Right, Vijay, Dalveer Bandari's statement is quite interesting, multiple reasons. One, of course, the fact that 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. And 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 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 eventual ceasefire, what he means is basically exactly what Israel means. 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 of 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, 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, there was 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, et cetera, et cetera. And I think that argument has been completely torn into shreds by the ICJ when 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'll 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'll of course decide on it later, but we are not dismissing the case on the grounds 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 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 very important. Firstly, if I were Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu, Mr. Isaac Herzog and others, even if not Ben Guir, I would worry because some 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 the delay 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 sanctions 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 a 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 Haik 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 will do what we want. But I think that, you know, on the other hand, they're of course rejecting 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 cases. 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 Petro, had an extremely long tweet saying that 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 and 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 sense of legal accountability and responsibility. So, you know, Naledi Pandor 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 Palestine and Israel, given the prosecutor, you know, his complete lack of, you know, 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, you know, 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. 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 Security Council reacts.