 Okay, um, so we are on so I'm about to stop the I can hear music from you Joe. Oh not again Okay. Oh damn it. I have that tablet. I see it. I think this is it. Yeah Yeah, that was judgment. I don't start all right. You speak last hour No, you're fine. I'll just testing testing one two three making sure I'm lost Oh Okay, I'm going to start the intro Okay, just give me the countdown and I'm ready. I'm getting ready Need to speak last You see Welcome to cn live season six episode one the icj rules on israel. I'm elizabeth boss in Fayetteville, arkansas And i'm joe laury the editor-in-chief of consortium news reporting from the hag in the netherlands Where yesterday the international court of justice Issued its interim ruling in the case of south africa versus israel South africa has accused israel of committing genocide in gaza and asked the court for provisional measures Including ordering israel to halt its military operation while israel is put on trial for genocide The court found that there was a dispute between south africa and israel and had jurisdiction in the case Israel had argued that norm no formal dispute between the parties exists The court also rejected israel's argument to dismiss the case Ruling that there is a prime there is prima facie evidence that israel's committing the crime of genocide in contravention of the genocide convention That means israel will indeed be put on trial for genocide a momentous decision that few people ever thought would be possible Based on that preliminary finding the court ordered the following provisional measures Israel shall take all measures within its power to prevent all acts within the scope of the genocide convention article two And the first measure is that israel must immediately ensure its military does not commit acts within the scope of article two It must direct and punish all members of the public who engage in the incitement of genocide against palestinians It must ensure provision of urgently needed basic services like humanitarian aid It must prevent the destruction of and ensure the preservation of evidence And allegations of acts of genocide and israel will submit a report as to how they're adhering to these orders to the icj within one month From south africa's point of view and from those who want to see israel's genocidal mass corrupt. These were positive orders However, it is a ruling that has engended various interpretations Which we'll discuss today some which might exaggerate what the court has actually ruled For instance, the court did not order israel to stop genocidal acts as many people saying It said it must prevent genocidal acts that the court hasn't yet ruled are actually taking place Calling on israel to stop such acts would mean the court had already determined that genocide is occurring The court requires israel to follow its orders including not to kill civilians But only quote within the scope of article two of the genocide convention Allowing perhaps israeli lawyers to argue that palestinian civilian deaths are occurring or occurring outside that scope An army can kill civilians even in a war crime without committing genocide Is the court just telling israel that when killing civilians Please be careful not to violate article two of the genocide convention because we're going to try you on a charge of violating it If that's the case then the court's ruling doesn't seem radically different from what the united states Has been telling israel be careful how you defend yourself In regard to that international humanitarian law on the obligations of an occupying power are complex On the question of when it can use force in self defense Certainly on israeli territory israel has a right under article 51 of the un charter to self defense But is it lawful to take offensive measures on a territory? It occupies on which it has an obligation that the geneva conventions to care for the occupied people Would the occupying germans for instance have had the right to defend itself against attacks by the resistance on french territory The court never discussed this issue at all Some argue that an order for a ceasefire would have prolonged the Sorry prejudged the case on on the merits, which is to come before the trial even begins But could the court not have ordered israel to suspend its military operation while the trial proceeds to determine if genocide is taking place This would rob israel of arguing its killing of civilians is outside the scope of the convention There is a video of south africans dancing and celebration of the court's decision But the people who really count here are not the south africans or anyone else But the people of gaza And reporting from there indicates bitter disappointment by the people who were reported to be crushed by this ruling Only a suspension of israel's assault. It seems would have served them Perhaps the world has gotten so used to israel's ironclad impunity that a court saying israel is plausibly committing genocide And should prevent their soldiers from doing so is such a shocking departure from the past that it is inviting celebration Perhaps the most important question though is whether the court's order will alter israel's behavior to substantially reduce civilian casualties And substantially increase humanitarian services. We should know in one month when israel is supposed to report back to the court Politically there are other questions apart from the legal ones And for example, how does this ruling change the decades old impunity that the us and israel have enjoyed is is it cracking Is this part of it the changing world order in which the us has lost so much legitimacy And just the past three years When you consider afghanistan ukraine and al-gaza To discuss these questions and more are we in what should be alive the discussion? We're joined by legal and geostrategic analyst alexander mccouris who's in london is the editor of the doran And in raleigh north carolina is rey mcgovern and former cia analyst and an activist We hope to be joined a little later in the program by international law professor francis boil from illinois alexander, let me start with you since uh, you have the legal background here Just some of the legal questions that i've raised. I don't want to get bogged down And I do want to get on to the political issues which i'm more adept at and more interested in but What about some of these the question i asked for example about whether they're limiting the scope to Article two of the convention whether israel can argue that the debts that we're causing are outside that scope Yes, I mean they can argue these things and where it's important to understand We are absolutely at the start of what i suspect is going to be a very long pro process Of litigation indeed up to this point the israelis have not taken this case seriously Their presentation in my opinion To the court in response to south africans was not At all strong and it's worked against them. We've had this ruling from the From the court a ruling which should not be underestimated in my opinion But yes, the israelis can respond to these points They can make the points that you've been making the point is that in a litigation pro process It is always open to the other side to make contrary points as well And that is what we now have Given that the court has now found that there is a prima facie case of genocide The weight is going to the burden is now going to pass to israel To show every time that civilians are attacked every time that gelling takes place Every time that they do certain things if the south african say this is consistent with a genocidal intention It will be for the israelis now to try and argue that this is not the case So it is not decisive. We are at the start of a litigation process The israelis may come up with many arguments, but they are on the back foot What about if after one month when they submit their report that the court is not satisfied that they're doing what they're being asked to do that they're not preventing acts that Are plausibly genocide what what could the court do at that point? Could they issue more orders? Could they just go to the security council to try to enforce it? Which of course, we know the u.s. Would veto any effort even, you know, obviously sanctions or economic sanctions and even a military force Is an option for the security council on the chapter seven to try to stop israel We know the u.s. Is going to stop. So what happens if israel Give it to report then the court says this isn't good enough Well, this is this is you put your finger on it because it is not in the power of the court To enforce these orders the court has made orders. Some of these orders are mandatory They have the weight of international law behind them if israel either simply disregards these orders Which by the way is what israel is currently doing and I think this is an important thing to say I mean they have essentially Trashed this entire order Incredibly, um arrogant and in my opinion foolish decision, but that's what they've done if they continue in this course or Alternatively If they do the sort of thing That if I have to say it Bad lawyers tend to do which is to try to string the court along by pretending compliance and then throwing in you know, uh, equivocations and and Saying you know, we can't quite do this and we're trying to do that But we're not really doing it because for the moment it's too difficult that kind of thing Then it seems to me the two things start to happen. Firstly, the court will probably make more orders It might start to make more findings. It might start to make stronger findings against israel that israel is being non-compliant eventually You know bear in mind that this is a litigation process Which most people assume is going to last for years Perhaps decades it israel simply refuses to cooperate The court might say well, look there is a huge amount of evidence coming from the south african side Remember the south african side is always in a position to submit evidence There's a huge amount of evidence coming from the south african side. There is obstruction from the israeli side So maybe we are starting to say to ourselves. Well, if there's obstruction Maybe the reason there's obstruction is because this case of this prima facie case of genocide Is is israel after all so, you know, maybe we can Start to move to some kind of maybe not final judgment But judgment that's something like that is actually happening and happening on an extensive scale But in the meantime the logical the obvious thing for the court to do if its orders are not up in disregarding Is to take it to the security council the united states as you rightly say has veto powers on the security council so does britain Which i suspect again would probably go along with the united states but what we have seen over the last couple of months Since the events that began in october is that the security council On the security council the united states and britain have increasingly become isolated A difficult position for them to be in at any time especially now when one senses that the global situation is shifting The general assembly There's been two votes in the general assembly Each with big majorities in the second vote Calling for a ceasefire The majority was even bigger And of course, it's possible that the general assembly might start to do things now the general assembly generally doesn't do very much its resolutions are advisory but About a year ago The western powers including the united states and especially britain Were for example suggesting that the General assembly refer russia to the international criminal court Just just one example So they were saying that that the general assembly has the power to do that That doesn't seem to be a provision to that effect in the rome statue It was abandoned but in this situation when the The international criminal court has already said that it believes it has jurisdiction in this in In relation to what is going on in gaza given that palestine is a signatory to the rome To the rome statue I mean, it's not inconceivable. I mean, I can imagine a situation where the general assembly tells the international criminal court look The the icj has ruled that there's a prime evasion case. There is clear obstruction by israel They're not complying with the orders There's an enormous amount of deaths and destruction and going on in gaza all the time This is the moment for you to act And what does the icc do if it gets that kind of referral from the general assembly? So this is a complex game I understand if you are living in gaza and you're having the bombs falling on you and you've been cut off from food and supplies and you have israeli soldiers um in your streets and you have fighting going on that this is frankly Going to seem very weak and very limited and you probably have no time and no patience for legal games and diplomatic moves in new york, but That's the reality. I'm afraid of international politics and in those terms Israel has suffered a significant defeat and this process is now going to move forward in ways which i think israel is going to find It more difficult to suppress in the way that you said Oh, I have two other legal questions But i'm going to hold them for a later because i want to bring rey mcgovernans in raleigh I've just been joined by craig marie as well. I suppose from geneva rey Let's get away from the legal side for a second and what is the impact politically of this Decision forget about what I said in the introduction again. I raised a lot of Legal questions and i'm questioning whether or not the ceasefire was possible and all of that What about this the political impact? Did you ever think this we'd see this? What is a change? What does it change? What's the operative factor here in my view is that it's an election year Biden has already lost a lot of support in some key midwestern states And among people two generations younger than I But He's in deep kimchi. Okay Now I assume like most others that the un that the us would veto a u.m. Resolution But i'm no longer so sure There is a personal jeopardy element that's been introduced here Genocide is genocide Accomplices or accomplices and people who enable genocide can be brought into the dock. Okay my view is that Biden given his advanced age. I mean he's almost as old as I am for god's sake He doesn't give a rats patootie about being put in the dock When you got these little guys this little acolytes like your Sullivan and Lincoln and so other people, you know They could They could have an effect on on what happens here out of the feeling of self preservation How much do we hope to support the israelis if this is we're going to redound on us personally So I don't know what's going to happen But I think that's a new element that's been introduced here and of course everyone knows but it bears repeating That without the united states. This could not continue That's a big deal And a lot of people in the united states to realize that now and the court decision will galvanize those of us who are strongly opposed What's going on But and it remains to be seen what's going to happen in one month But lastly, I'll just say you know I'll learn about the children And we could talk about the legal niceties But I would prefer raja waters So that no one kills the children anymore All right, there was a a hearing in california Yesterday on the case brought by the scientific constitutional rights in new york charging biden Blinken and and austin. I don't think solom is in there. He might be with complicity for genocide and they had a court hearing So that's the domestic Issue there that you say that's really going to damage Biden so does that make him change his policy is he going to cut I mean any politicians are going to cut whoever's been helping them if it's going to mean Helping them survive and right now israel may be sinking biden. What will he do? I don't know But I will say that he has this passionate attachment to the zionist state of israel And you don't have to well, I'll just remind you what george washington our first president said about The evil aspects of national attachment Passionate attachments to countries that don't share the objectives that the united states of america should share So, you know, I don't know if he's able to change his mind as I say he's a very old guy But I think his immediate advisors have a new element that they're worried about here Not only the election, but also the notion that if this thing drags on even if it's only two three four years from now They could be put in the dock. I'm not saying they will dangle from a rope But just being afraid of being put in the dock could change their mind and to the degree they have any any influence on On biden that might play into this. I don't know But it's a new in a new element What you just said answered my first question was what has changed because the idea of an american President i'm not talking about Donald trump in a courtroom in new york for some civil case. I'm talking about an american president Actually going on trial for the huge crimes that most american presidents since the second world war have committed Which is absolutely unfathomable to think that that could ever happen. So this Preliminary ruling that it's plausible that israel's command jets it changes the political Environment that you couldn't even imagine an american leader. Maybe being in the dock. Is that what you're saying? Right my govern? Well, that's what you're saying joe. I'm more You know The lawyers can play this thing out. It'll be referred and it will be, you know upheeled and all this stuff And I don't know whether it's possible for this to come to any kind of conclusion before the election Perhaps it will but i'm from missouri on that one Yeah, well, I mean down the road. Is there no longer sank or sank this idea So one last question before we move to to uh to craig The legitimacy of the united states supposed a veto it goes to the security council, okay And I think any conch out africa could bring in or any country on the council right now and then They want some kind of enforcement against israel sanctions, let's say or at least just an original statement of condemnation by the council and the u.s. Vito's that what does that do to the waning and weakening legitimacy of the united states given Afghanistan debacle to ukraine's debacle and now their involvement here. What would that do Because that would help be part of the political equation if they decide Vetoing this could hurt me politically at home domestically and internationally Joe there's something called the israel lobby Never heard of it this In my view this would help Joe biden for god's sake. He needs money He needs powerful people behind him, you know, you and I look at it from a justice point of view Biden doesn't look at it that way and neither do the democrats frankly They're in it Have wouldn't the election and if this if this cuts the other way that as when you suggest I think they would go ahead and veto it and Take the international opprobium Uh, but you know that opprobium is already built and this well, this is a big deal. It adds to it But that's my calculation on their political calculations Right, so israel is not becoming a liability elizabeth. Maybe you'd like to take over and ask, uh, craig some questions Sure. Yeah craig I I was following your coverage of the proceedings from the haig with you know a lot of attention close attention And I noticed that you're in your reporting from the courtroom You said that the judges some of the judges were basically fiddling with iPads during some of uh, south africa's presentation To the court and so I was wondering what you expected the ruling to look like based on your experience in the courtroom And were you surprised at all by what we heard yesterday? You're muted I wasn't surprised by the by the order Of provisional measures and the way that provisional measures were slightly fudged. That's what I expected I was surprised by the strength of the statement before that in Um in ruling that there were plausible grounds for genocide It was not necessary for the president of the court to go into so much detail As to what the plausible grounds for genocide were that they had found It was not necessary for the president of the court to read out Four different quotes from Israeli ministers including from the president of israel Detailing incitement to genocide. It wasn't necessary for the president of the court to read out your four statements by senior officials of the united nations Uh detailing the the horrific death and and destruction in Gaza And also the court was saying they couldn't be verified gave the um, Hamas As the bbc would say the Hamas run ministry of health's, um Figures for for debts and the court gave those and and relied on them. So um the It was impossible really to listen to that and um then Not only uh, is the court Minded that there there is a plausible case for genocide the court is minded There's a pretty strong case for genocide and and that That surprised me um that In a sense doesn't feed into the orders because the you know, they're Uh, there's a great deal of consternation as to why a ceasefire Um, wasn't ordered why the word ceasefire wasn't used Obviously about the political and whether the first part of the order Um amounts to calling for a ceasefire because you would need effectively almost a ceasefire in order to implement it I I would argue purely as a bit of analysis But actually it doesn't rule out continuing genuine What you might call anti-terrorist operations of a very limited kind which avoid civilian casualties that those You could do that and argue you were complying with the would the order um But uh, you know in in a sense it's tautologists because the first part of the order Is an instruction to a babe genocide convention in terms it's saying you are accused of beach of article 2 a b c and d And we order you to comply with article 2 a b c and d Well legally that makes no difference to anything on the grounds that as a as a As a country which has ratified the treaty Uh, so if uh, uh, israel was already obliged to keep, uh articles to a b c and d Um, whether the court told them to or not So, uh, in a sense that that doesn't actually add anything But what why it does add something is that it was very very plain from all that preceding explanation, but the court believes this is a genocide um And that's where I think the important I think it's important people and I'm sorry. I'm going beyond your question And uh, I will shut up in a minute, but I I think it's important people understand that this is the start of the process Not the end of the process I mean that's true in the legal sense And this was an interim ruling on whether a case is going to proceed and the case will Will eventually proceed. It's also true in a political sense. This is just the beginning of of this um And the truth is bluntly that if israel if the court had actually ordered a ceasefire That would make no difference on the grand and gaza at all Anyway, is israel would not have complied if the court had ordered a ceasefire Just as they is there is no intention Of complying with the actual order, but the Israel must keep to to a b c and d of the genocide convention um The ability of western powers to portray, you know to Put out an entirely false narrative And and essentially Claim Wildly, but israel actually won yesterday when you know the decision was quite obviously humiliating for For israel bit their arguments were dismissed in their entirety um Is slightly scary because uh If enough people believe Uh, but the international court of justice Has said israel is fine and doing the right things and there is no genocide Uh, then obviously the political pressure doesn't come to bear. Uh, but that's a different question. Anyway, I think that's enough on the first question Yes, and I and it was interesting too that you see this in the media this representation of israel having sort of won But yet in israel, uh, israeli officials are very angrily calling the icj anti-semitic So it's a bit of a divide there. Um, Alexander. I wanted to ask you really quickly What could the icj have done if they had completely Agreed that there that a genocide is taking place that we must stop it. What could the public have seen? You know in in the most, um pro-palestine outcome possible I I don't personally think that they could have come to a decision after a two-day hearing That uh, a final order. I think had they done that Um these the israel and the western powers would have come back and said The court is clearly prejudged this thing. They're not acting properly. There has to be a litigation process I don't think that was ever going to happen. I'm going to say straight away I think the court was extremely nervous about this case I don't think the judges who were trying it were, you know, happy to be trying a case like this Against a country like israel, but they have been presented with overwhelming evidence massive Disproportionate use of force by israel in gaza indiscriminate use of force killing tens of thousands of people And exactly what craig was talking about just now. These incredible appalling statements one after the other by israeli officials Which clearly appear to show a genocidal intent and which continued by the way Incredibly even as the proceedings were underway. I mean, this is what was I mean, it must have been shocking so They eventually decided that they had no choice and that's how I perceive this Then to say look there is clearly here a plausible Very strong case as craig has said and they went into the detail why that is so And that's why they gave the orders that they did the interim orders that they did We should not overlook the fact as I said that they did say there is a plausible case and that Interim orders therefore To prevent a possible genocidal, but we're not possible A genocide that might be happening Were were needed and craig, of course is absolutely correct But he says that you know israel is blind Not the carry out of genocide anyway as a matter of international law And it is tautologists in simple language to order israel Not to do that which it is obliged anyway not to do But of course tautology is exactly what lawyers do all the time. It is entirely normal in courts What the court is now telling israel is look you are now on notice We can see What you appear to be doing We can hear what you are saying If you continue in this way You are going to be in very very deep trouble indeed. That is what we're called to say Francis Boyle is joining us from milanoi Francis. Thanks for coming on You were quoted Can you hear me? Okay, excellent So we were quoted by the institute for public accuracy as saying this This is a this is a massive overwhelming legal victory for the republic of south africa against israel on behalf of the palestinians The un general assembly Now can suspend israel from participation in its activities as it did for south africa and yugoslavia He can admit palestinia as a full member And especially since the international criminal court has been a farce It can establish a tribunal to prosecute the highest level officials of the israeli government both civilian and military That's a lot there francis that you've got out of this ruling. Can you explain how all of that is possible from this preliminary ruling? Well, thanks for having me on joe and my best all my friends at consortium Let me start by saying i was the first lawyer ever to win anything from the world court on the genocide convention That was on behalf of my clients the republic of bosnia herzegovina against yugoslavia on 8 april 1993 and it was a massive overwhelming order In favor of the bosnians And then i won a second world court order for the bosnians on 13 september 1993 against yugoslavia and that was massive and overwhelming in favor of the bosnians This was the first time ever that any lawyer or government had won two orders in one case At the world court since it was founded in 1921 and then i won a third order from the president of the court exercising the powers of the court under The rules of the statue of the international court of justice 74 paragraph 4 So based on my knowledge judgment and experience before the order came down You will see if you do a google search i had predicted correctly so That uh south africa would win a request for provisional measures of protection On behalf of the palestinians along the lines of the first measure of protection i won For the bosnians and that was unanimous and if you have a look at their first order 15 to 2 not unanimous but the israeli judge ad hoc barack and the Ugandan judge i haven't had a chance to read his opinion 15 to 2 that's higher than i predicted I thought there'd be some political plaintiff but 15 to 2 and basically That is real as i predicted must cease and desist from committing all acts of genocide Against the palestinians if you read it, it's very clear exactly what it says and what i predicted now we come here to the uh Controversial part 15 to 2 the state of israel shall ensure with a media effect That its military does not commit any acts described in point one above the cease and desist on all acts of genocide now you have to understand that First of all the highly quiet You know i was bosnian's ambassador to the world court for almost a year And spent four full days arguing for the court to get those orders They are highly technical and positivistic so hamas Was not a party to this litigation So there was no way they could issue an order to hamas For a ceasefire it could not happen They could issue a ceasefire Against israel But that would be completely imbalanced So what they did here was the next best thing They could issue this order against the israeli military Saying that you have to cease and desist from committing all acts of genocide Against the palestinians set forth uh in Article one of that provisional measures of protection. That's exactly what they did. They won as far as they could I commend them for Saying this this is not like the case uh ukraine v russia Where both states were parties to that litigation And they could call for a a ceasefire now I won't go through the rest of the order uh here But you know if you look at the votes 15 to 2 16 to 1 unanimous, it's a smashing Legal victory now what happens under the terms of the united nations charter The order goes to the security council for enforcement You know you you win an order from your local judge The defendant doesn't obey it. So you have to go to the sheriff to get it enforced. That's the security council algeria has Asked for a meeting of the security council on Wednesday to enforce this order I guess we'll have to see what happens Wednesday As of now it does appear that The biden administration the sunak government will veto Uh any enforcement at all very similar to Uh what happened in the nicaragua case where my teacher, men and friend abe jays won an order for the nicaraguans Took it to the world court. The us vetoed it under Reagan But that is not the end of the matter Because it can then be turned over to the united nations general assembly under the uniting for peace resolution And under the uniting for peace resolution there could be dramatic consequences for us First as you correctly pointed out The general assembly could suspend israel from participation in its activities Like they did to the criminal apartheid regime in south africa And like they did to my adversary the genocidal yugoslavia Second the general assembly Pursuant to its powers under article 22 of the un charter Can set up an international criminal tribunal for israel I started an initiative that effect in the general assembly several years ago It was pioneered by malaysia and iran I lined them both up and Supported by a large number of arab muslim states in the general assembly It was sabotaged by the usual suspect But with this order, uh, it might be that the general assembly Will revisit my proposal set that tribunal up and start prosecuting the highest level officials of the both civilian and military in israel Third the general assembly can recommend you and member states of adopt sanctions serious sanctions against israel As you know jill today, uh north carol north korea suffers under terrible draconian sanctions Not that I support them today, but all those sanctions go back to a Resolution by the un general assembly under the uniting for peace resolution That's where they all go back to they couldn't get it from the security council because of a uh, soviet veto next the general assembly could recommend that All un member states suffer diplomatic relations uh with israel Finally Under the uniting for peace resolution The general assembly can admit palestine as a full fledged un member state now you've covered this show Uh, as you know, I did all the legal work for the palestinians on this They did try in 2012 to get Full fledged un membership The united states government Opposed that stopped them So they settled for observer state status Along the lines that switzerland had before it became a full fledged un member state Uh, all right. Well, sir there Uh, and they uh, they could be admitted Craig, I want to ask you if you can answer this, uh, it's a legal question, but the question of self-defense Article 51 of the un chart of course allows a state to defend itself if it's attacked on its own territory Israel was attacked on its own territory and it defended itself and nobody questions that but to Can an occupying power go into the occupying territory and engage in offensive military operations Against the people that the Geneva convention says they are obliged to protect their welfare How does this work here the the question of self-defense? Craig you muted Hello, sorry Yeah, I think I got it. Yeah. Yeah, um, I was actually just looking up article 22 of the um, un chart Which and I'll answer your question a minute, but we may become back to that because um It's about setting up subsidiary organs of the journal assembly Not sure you can set up a tribunal over it or or that's being done But we're Francis let you hold that fort and come I'll come back to you on it. Uh, when I finished the first bit I mean, uh One interesting point is I mean to go back over the icj Judgment maybe Alexander those um given the israel's uh defense at the At the icj at the hearings Was based entirely on the right to self-defense Um, it's fascinating that the court hardly mentioned that at all. In fact, I'm not sure they did mention it I'm I'm I'm not sure the phase self-defense appears in the In the judgment about something I want to go back and and check. I certainly can't recall um her talking of israel's right to self-defense as a factor um and uh And that really in itself Is an astonishing thing because um that they've Virtually treated with contempt the israeli her defense because of course Whether or not you have a right of self-defense that is not a right to commit genocide, which is a totally different thing The question of self-defense in the uh And it it appears to be established international law and it makes sense But an occupying power Has no right of self-defense In the territories which it illegally occupies. Um, that That you know makes um makes makes entire sense um where you have a hybrid situation where the people of an illegally occupied territory Undertake attacks in the metropolitan of the power Which is occupying them? um, and then you have a response into the occupied territory um, that that is a question on which I I would say there probably is no I very much doubt there is any judgment of the of the icj That that actually tells you the answer to your question. Um, and I think it's a question on which Different people would have different opinions. Uh, and the question perhaps needs to be settled But I don't think it is a settled, um, uh question. I think if, um Uh, if israel had carried out the kind of normal Small scale Well, I say small scale killing hundreds of people, but the normal much smaller strikes into into gaza as a result of uh, the action on 7 october We wouldn't be here Now and probably there wouldn't be Serious questioning. No one would have gone to the icj about whether or not israel had the right to do that although the entire question of israel's, um, uh occupation Position as an occupying power is up again before the icj on the february of 19th in a p existing Case which may give us the answer, but I'm sorry. That's a long way of saying. I just don't know. I don't know where But I don't know where the law would lie. I'm not sure anybody else definitively Joe there is an answer there is an answer to the question if you uh, Let me have a second here in the, uh, world court advisory opinion On israel's apartheid wall Uh, the court did consider this matter self defense. Now israel did not show up to argue There, uh, it allowed its surrogates to make its arguments for okay, uh foreign sovereign cannot be forced to litigate before the world court But the court considered, uh, self defense And it rejected self defense on the ground Excuse me if I could finish on the ground that, uh, israel is the belligerent occupant of the west bank And that a belligerent occupant does not have a right of self defense under international law or un charter article 51 Uh, with respect to the people that occupies rather it is governed by the uh, for geneva conventions and the hate regulations of 1907 now the reason why no as, uh, Greg correctly pointed out israel made the argument of self defense The court did not address it because The court as I found out in the bosnia case the two orders I Won for bosnia where argued self defense for bosnia in both orders the court took the position That self defense does not fall within the purview of the genocide convention And so therefore I could not get a ruling from the court On article 51 Within the jurisdiction I had that was solely limited to the genocide convention. So I believe that is why following what happened to me in the Bosnia case the court said nothing at all about self defense, but the argument has already been rejected Uh, the israeli's lawyers must have known that when they uh, they made this argument in court Yeah, in fact the british barrister for south africa raised the very question of the barrier, uh, and that judgment of the icj, right? On the territory Can I come back on that though because I'm not I'd love it to be the case I'm I'm my heart is with you I think in, um It's one sentence in that judgment on the wall. It's a single sentence um and it's almost an aside to the main argument they And um, the judgment doesn't depend on that on on on that sentence Um, and it doesn't deal with the question that was asked It doesn't deal with the question of if people have an occupied territory attack attack into the metropolitan of the Of the path that is occupying them does the Uh, attacks in its metropolitan have it right of self-defense is a different question And you may be and the answer may be the same It may be comprehensive But I don't think it is the same question and I don't think we know what the world court would would rule On that but they and and it's interesting because they could have said here They could actually have said here. They could have said No, we we rejected the arguments of self-defense because this is an occupying part and it has no right of self-defense This was a perfect opportunity to say that if that's what the law is And they they didn't say it and I think they ducked the question because I think it it's far too difficult a question. That's my That's my view of it If if I can just throw in I think the whole self-defense argument that israel made Was an extraordinarily weak argument Which the court was bound to reject? I mean what israel needed to do Was to go to before the court and say look you've been told that we're committing a genocide in gaza The facts show otherwise We're not committing a genocide in gaza our actions in gaza are Proportionate and limited. We're not targeting civilians. We're trying to target civilians We're not seeking to displace populations and that kind of thing But of course They were not in a position to do that because on the facts It does appear and that seems to me to be where the court is heading that the use of force Is disproportionate and it is combined with all these genocidal statements Or at least statements that appear to show Genocidal intent from israeli officials that the south africans so carefully set out in their original submission so I think that Again just to say I think that was a weak defense that israel put together and in some ways an arrogant one and I think that if the israelis had been a lot more disciplined in the way that they've been talking about the situation in gaza Since at the events of october if none of these statements had been made It would have been much more difficult to get this Decision and these orders, but they made these statements. They made them repeatedly the prime minister of israel former president of israel All sorts of officials in israel made these statements And I think that persuaded the court that there is a strongly plausible case and that's why we are where we are Ray you want to weigh in on this or I'll ask another question of you The it appears I'm calling this bombing of gaza urban renewal to clear out that entire Infrastructure so that it can be rebuilt and make and create a club med For israelis to live along the Mediterranean in other words before you can populate Gaza and kick The palestinians out which appears to have been and still appears to be the ball here They would have to destroy all the buildings and then rebuild them How does this icj ruling? Affect those long-term plans. Is it gum up the works or is israel totally impervious to what the court is saying? What public opinion is saying and what some media outlets are started to say Well, it's uh hutzpah on steroids The right word is impervious. Okay, but there's another element that is seldom mentioned Yeah, there are the beaches nice beaches in Gaza. I've seen them. Okay But there are also natural gas deposits offshore In territorial waters whose territorial waters. Wow. Wow. Uh, well I don't have to take it any further there the Greeks people in Crete And the israelis already negotiating on how they're going to get that into a pipeline to get some of the gas at the western europe so that the Nord Stream 2 and 1 there will be less necessary young in other words There's an economic aspect to this that plays a huge role in israel's attitude as to who governs the Gaza That needs to be brought to the fore. I think the other thing I'll just add is simply what craig mentioned public opinion political pressure That requires knowledge That requires awareness Uh, the western populists need to know what's going on and it you know a harbinger today was the economist of london saying Oh, it's a terrible decision It taints Israel for years because it will take years to come to a verdict on this thing The net effect is israelis tainted Unnecessarily well now we know what the economist is but if the western press takes this line people are so Ill-educated that the political pressure as craig has already said will be real real hard to to gather and to amass and to have any good effect Uh, anyone could jump in or elizabeth if you have some more questions Coming close to the end of the story I'd like to get uh anyone's opinion on what this ruling says about the west's and uh rule so-called rules based order And it's you know, it's just total support of israel no matter what they do Especially in light of israeli officials response to the ruling being so defiant and brazen and all and as alex mentioned All these really overt statements of genocidal intent that they made prior to the ruling Um, yeah, so just your your opinions on how much this embarrasses the west Well, I I think that I don't know how embarrassed they feel I think some officials in the west are acutely embarrassed But the credibility of this rules based International order that they've been talking about now for several years, which they've never properly defined I think its credibility is Is shattered. I don't think I don't think that it was in particularly good health Already its credibility before this ruling took place But I think that you know, what has happened has shattered it even further. This is my own view and I mean now israel Has been you know found It's it's been prosecuted. It's been, you know, have a case it can prosecute. It's it's got a case against it the genocide Um, we've heard all the things that the general assembly might do which go beyond by the way What I imagine that the general assembly could do but there we go And I I I can't really see how credibly they come can come back from this. Of course, they will try Can I um come in? um I think uh We will You'll have to Do everything we can of course to to increase the uh the political pressure and there will be warnings, I mean I know for certain within the foreign office There'll be a memo. It might have come out yesterday, but there'll be something from foreign office legal advisers Who ministers which will warn them in terms? that um Things like continuing arm shipments may put them At risk of it wanted to say Definitely, but at risk of eventual personal prosecution for complicity and genocide should genocide be found eventually um, and I do think as as Ray said these are people who Are are they selfishly motivated and personal risk? I think we'll make a difference We're seeing defiance at the moment. I'm in the foreign office put out a statement today in the uk um, which Went as close to repudiating the international court of justice as I you know, I Went closer to repudiating the icj even I ever thought I would see a British Government do do in public and at the moment The initial reaction is defiance. I think this attack on the uh on unra is obviously part of part of that Uh defiance, but this is going to play out over over years. I mean my own view is um from looking at the court, uh both yesterday, um That eventually in two or three years time is there is going to be found guilty of genocide That's when this really starts to to play out because at that stage They can't keep pretending that israel won in court yesterday That they control the media so they can plug that narrative like crazy To the population which is what they're doing now, but I I think eventually this is going to be found uh to be genocide um and I know it's of no, um It it it's of no assistance Today to the people Dying in in in in palestine To say that but but I do think When that happens That's going to be a shattering moment for the the entire uh Western political elite In in in effect. I I think that's going to be That's going to be seismic and at the moment. They're thinking. Oh, well, that's a couple of years away. It doesn't matter But they they're going to have to concentrate their minds on that more and more As every month goes past Having said that I want to throw this question out Put yourself in the position of the israeli lawyers right now. Would they be telling the government look Let's substantially decrease the number of civilian deaths in the next month That's increased the aid somewhat near the level that we lied about during our submissions on the 12th of January that's just You know when the teachers coming around you behave well and we'll just we'll let this thing will pass over Was that you think that's what we might likely see? Well, there'll be at least a practical benefit for the next month in a ameliorated situation for palestinian civilians Because of this ruling Our loans Please please That uh Disorder is hard power. Let me give you two examples for my own practice of law After I won that uh first order for the basnians. I walked out into the foyer in front of the Grand courtroom The whole world news meter was there and I held the order up And I said the world court has determined genocide is going on here Every party to the genocide convention has an obligation to stop it under article one quote to prevent genocide And I'm here quite calling for direct military intervention By the united states and the nato states to save the basnians Up from extermination by the yugoslavs a few hours later uh, both Washington dc and nato headquarters in new york announced That they were going to institute a no-fly zone over basni that nato jet fighters would shoot down any serve Jet fighters planes and helicopters so they could no longer murder the basnians from the sky second libya in the Lockerbie bombing cases uh, george bush senior had mobilized the sixth fleet off the coast of triply on war maneuvers uh, they were Penetrating libyan airspace Uh, I convinced colonel qaddafi to give me the authority To sue the u.s. And the uk Uh at the international court of justice Uh, demand an emergency hearing and an indication of provisional measures of protection Uh, I filed that lawsuit and and those papers. Uh, I drafted them all myself Bush senior ordered the sixth fleet to stand down Let me repeat that The mere filing of a world court lawsuit and request for provisional measures of protection forced bush senior to order the entire sixth fleet to stand down No one was killed as a result of this So, uh, this is hard power. We're dealing with precisely how it will turn out It's hard to say but there will be consequences here. Yes Alexander you were going to say something. No, I was I mean that that was very interesting But can I say you specifically asked? Um, what are israel's lawyers going to be advising? I mean, one would love to be Uh, a fly on the wall But in a sense, I do think it matters because I get the sense of the political leaders in israel I'm just going to have already made a decision Which is that they're going to go on doing exactly what they have been doing And they are Convinced that politically Their support amongst the western powers amongst with, you know, the united states britain And germany which I might been very very foolishly Became involved in this case as a third party. I don't understand that by the way I don't understand the procedure that that could be explained. I'd be quite grateful But anyway, uh, they're convinced that they're convinced that it will You know, they'll they'll continue to get that protection Which will of course all that will do is cause more and more embarrassment and more and more problems for their allies and at the same time It will cause Tensions with those allies which will be exacerbated and it probably caused tensions with israel itself But I don't think the israelis are in any mind Or or mood to listen to is to um legal advice. I think at the moment they've shown that they just don't care about it. That's my own feeling I I also there's one thing I want to say about the israeli lawyers. I mean when I sat In the corpse on the on the second day and and this is something francis must have experienced as well um I was Really shaken by some of the things israeli lawyers were saying Uh, the the lawyers for the israeli side and that's because their legal teams were saying things which they must have known not to be true uh You know, they were saying for example that the widespread destruction to homes and civilian infrastructure Uh In gaza was largely due to hamas who had booby-trapped houses And over 2000 misfired hamas Missiles were responsible for a lot of the infrastructure destruction They said that there was more food entering gaza per day now than did before the 7th of october They said that the reason for the large number of child deaths was that hamas was imply pouring child soldiers that they they were They were saying things that they They must have known as a matter of fact to be To be untrue. So I don't think israel certainly in terms of a legal team that were taking the The case to the court. I don't think israel has a responsible uh legal team That they have a legal team which is happy to to fuel the fantasies and repeat the fantasies of its of its leadership and I um You know, you expect to hear arguments on the right of self-defense and that kind of thing and and there's no reason why And everybody deserves a defense and there's no reason why self-respecting lawyers shouldn't put arguments for either side which are reasonable But but to be there when lie after lie after lie big lies were being told um You really did feel and I felt in the presence of evil, you know It it felt horrible to be there and and listen to it And that was that was my biggest takeaway in a sense from the court in that um As far as I understand it in the legal profession and some of these people were kc's um Lawyers are not meant to tell outright lies that they know to be lies in court. Uh, so I I'm I find that absolutely extraordinary Well in response craig. Let me say this you're right Uh, uh ever since I entered harvard law school in september 1971 ardently, uh supporting the palestinians I have debated zinus lawyers at harvard and all over the world Uh, they all lie all the time. That includes uh dershowitz dinstein Uh gene rostow Etc. They just lie. It's that simple And that is why my experience and my debates with all these lawyers Since I entered harvard law school um I usually win the argument indeed I win because the palestinians have truth and justice on their side and that I think is why the South african lawyers won this argument, but but they lie that it's that simple. They all lie They never tell the truth. So I wasn't surprised Can I uh Francis Uh, I like to ask uh francis given all of the things that have just been adduced Uh, and given the need to stop the killing particularly of children Let's say, uh, the security council Deals with this on wednesday and let's say as most people expect Uh the resolution for Is vetoed And let's say the journal assembly Can get into the act and do kinds of the kinds of things that you you are Educating me To believe that they can do how quickly I mean People are being killed every day. Will there be any palestinians left in gaza in four weeks? Francis how quickly could this all happen if people Faced up to the fact that we're dealing with genocide now Well, you know ray. I had to deal with this with the basins myself While I was arguing for them at the world court and all these peace negotiations I could watch them on cnn be exterminated live It's a very difficult Situation to see your clients get wiped out But this is what we have uh the I do not advise the uh Government of south africa, but I do advise the palestinians The palestinians are fully aware of all these options that they can pursue at the United Nations General Assembly Obviously, this is south africa's order They will have to coordinate with South africa as we saw in the press conference afterwards the south african foreign minister then had a high level official from the palestinians I'm sure they are coordinating So I don't know ray. I I really can't say But yeah, I I watch my own clients get exterminated While I was doing the best I could to save them as a lawyer It's a very tough situation. Yes Fortunately, I don't have Legal responsibility for for the palestinians. I I advise their leadership, but You know, they do what they're going to do Can can I make one very quick point? Which is that if the sort of things that francis Which i'm sure they will, you know, we start getting indictments for example from tribunals. We start getting Decisions that palestine be made a full member state of the united nations, which I think is very likely by the way I think there is a groundswell for this If all of this starts to happen if all of these events start to happen One has to assume That the point is going to come When even the most powerful governments in the west start to say enough is enough We are going far out on a limb now on behalf of israel and the israelis aren't listening to what we're saying and The time has therefore come to start reigning israel in because There comes a point Where whatever emotional links feelings you have about israel how passionate they are It becomes For you israel becomes So your support for israel becomes a major problem And the united states has a lot more to worry about in the world than just israel It's got to think about russia. It's got to think about china It's got to think about all kinds of things in all sorts of places So I I think that if we start to see things happening in the way that's been Said by francis and by craig and I think the pressure will become overwhelming and we will start to see a shift And in europe, I think we're already seeing it And yosip morrell has had a very difficult meeting with israeli foreign minister, for example, very recently And I think that more european governments will start to peel away And the us and britain and the others will feel increasingly isolated I If I may I mean, I hope you're right alexander. I I think it's important not to believe the states Act in the best interest of that state and its population at all times as opposed to in the best interests of the particular politician Who has his hands on the lever? and Awful lot of politicians Are highly dependent on funding from a Zionist lobby that that's simply true and are deeply deeply Compromised by that for four years and maybe compromised in other ways, too um, so And it's been you know, we've already seen certainly to use a uk example You know, we've seen the leader of the opposition who's meant to be a famous human rights kc Refused to say whether it was a crime for israel to shoot dead a man An unarmed civilian holding a white flag and he said oh, well, I can't you know, how can I possibly judge? they We've seen politicians Absolutely humiliate themselves and and take ludicrous positions in defense of of israel And I think that road stretches a long way I I think these people don't suffer either shame or conscience in the way that Normal people suffer suffer shame and conscience, so I I'm I'm sorry. I'm I'm actually I'm not pessimistic. I think this is going to go very well And and I think this judgment this interim ruling is Part of a process that is going to end With big improvements. I I I just maybe think it's going to take slightly longer to play out than than others think I take the point Our online audience is asking what the chances are of this situation triggering world war three. Um, I didn't know if any of you had a comment on that Sure Please please please frances It's already spiraling out of control as we can see the government of yemen has publicly announced that it is attacking ships there In the red sea on the approach to the suez canal In defense the palestinians and they invoked article one of the genocide convention us and uk have now what had nine different rounds of military attacks upon them uh, we see the resistance forces in both iraq and syria uh, striking back on behalf of the palestinians Against us military forces in in syria and iraq. We see israel attacking syria We have seen israel repeatedly trying To to provoke lebanon. It's a very dangerous situation Alexander your comment on that No, I mean, I think that's how you used to make many of the same words. I don't think it's world war three But it's it's very bad. Oh, you look at the situation in the middle east It is clearly escalating and it is becoming very dangerous And again at the heart of it is this problem in gaza I mean, we wouldn't have problems in the red sea at the moment We wouldn't have a gathering crisis in lebanon if there wasn't this Disaster this humanitarian tragedy this what the I the icj says, you know, you know, uh, the a prima facie case of genocide in gaza there is a uh There is a danger that people should be cognizant of Things are not going well for israel needless to say They would very much like to get the u.s. involved in an open hostility with iran Neocons in washington are positively Lusting after that kind of thing fortunately for the world The iranians are not rising to the bait So where does that leave the israelis? Watch out for a false flag attack folks The israelis when push comes to shove Will do what they can to blame iran for whatever kind of costless belly they develop And mousetrap the u.s. And the administration Into Into supporting israel full bore Uh, if I didn't think there was a 50 chance of that I wouldn't mention it in this forum But I do think it's 50 and I just saw that out for people to be alert for Well ray, you're correct. Look at the israeli attack on the liberty in the 1967 war They tried to sink the liberty and then Blame it on the egyptians and get the u.s. involved and those Men courageously fought back. I was for a period of time Council for the liberty veterans. I regret to say Because of the power of the zinus lobby here in the united states. I couldn't accomplish anything for them But and I it does appear they will go to their graves Unvindicated. I'm sorry about that The liberty is is a perfect case in point of False flag and you're right that could happen here something along those lines. Yes Just to add Just to add to that, if I may the The israeli says as francis correctly points out Escaped any opprobrium President johnson secretary mcdomara and the u.s. Navy to its shame covered the incident up 34 sailors killed 171 wounded it was only saved when one of those enterprising sailors In the infantry we call it a field expedient, but he got some bailing wire and put together A way to broadcast an sos out and that saved that ship from complete sinking now What was the lesson there? Well clear the lessons learned that they could literally the israeli could literally Get or get away with murder. Okay I'm not only murdering Palestinians But murdering American service people Get away with it and we would cover it up now have things changed I dare say they've gotten still worse in that department. Would you agree francis? Yes, and as a matter of fact, I did investigate this for the liberty veterans it's been a while, but there is both a constitutional definition of treason and a statutory definition of treason And in my opinion certainly secretary defense mcdomara committed treason as for for what he did there With liberty and the zinus got away with it because of the power of the Zinus lobby here in the united states and it could happen again indeed, you know, we've seen starting with reagan the Infiltration of all elements of our government by these diehard neocon zinus. They're all up and down They control the western u.s. News media. They're very powerful and you can see how As kreg pointed out and here in the united states, they are spinning This world court lawsuit in favor of israel. So you're you're correct. It's gotten worse. I wrote a book I guess was published in 1989 talking about and analyzing the isrealization of american foreign policy And it's only accelerated since since I wrote that book in 1989. Yes Francis it wasn't put up by harvard university press. I don't think No, they're all zinus there. I can tell you that Well a little specific here for those of you who don't know mac demauer treason, what do you do? There were two aircraft carriers in the med. They're both within range of doing a dueling with us with israeli fighter jeffs Bombing and israeli patrol boats Torpedoing the liberty. What do you do? He called them back He said he called admiral grace. He said look you call us and they admiral to his credit said i'm sorry My forces are at war. I'm gonna have to talk to your supervisor Magnum ever says he's right here Lbj gets on the phone and says you call you call those those planes back I don't want to give a black eye to our ala israel And yeah Treason, yeah treason I was going to mention this lavand affair in 1954 named after the defense minister visited at time where they Had a bunch of israeli operatives in egypt. We're going to blow up american and british and egyptian owned Cafes and cinemas on it and blaming on the Egyptian communists and the muslim brotherhood, but they got exposed So there is a history and that one was confirmed of a flat false flag By israel if there's anything else that anyone wants to add this is the time otherwise We will bid all of you a goodbye and thank you so much for your time And ray has a few words I think he wants to say because today is january 27th and it was six years ago today that the founder of consortium news robert perry died and We still miss him very much And ray, I think you wanted to say a few words about that Well, I did two things I look at the faces on the screen and I know they're working like 20 hours a day That's what bob did now you can say strokes. You can say cancer But the last things that bob said to me a couple days before he died in the hospital was And he was heavily sedated. He said ray It's just too much, right? It's just too much. It's too much. It was sort of it was strange It was eerie. He was telling the truth in a kind of jacqueline. There's so much right too much, right? So I would just caution all of us And I preach into myself here Don't do too much. Okay Don't do too much last thing I'll say and and this I think is more relevant Perhaps to the state of the media these days is that bob told this story which is true And he allowed me to publish it When he came down to newsweek from ap and he was a hero He had exposed iran contra and he and all of a sudden after a month. He was invited to a little soiree Okay, it's only about 12 people and corporate was coming down from new york and at least a bob would like to come He said sure so there were 12 people there all men And his fellow there was a congressman from wyoming there if I gotta take a name was cheney and an apropos of nothing over this over the the the shrimp cocktail Uh general brint skullcroft Who had just stopped being the national security advisor says, you know gentlemen My successor admiral poindexter is going to congress on tuesday Uh, I would advise him to say that we never told ronald ragan a thing about iran contra Ha ha ha Now bob perry told me that Unaccustomed as he was to such suarees He dropped this fork broke his shrimp cocktail platter And instinctively said Gerald skullcroft, do you mean you would advise your successor to berger himself before the congress? Dead silence for about a half a minute according to bob And then the newsweek president or chairman in what a the mookity mookie there if newsweek in washington said no bob Bob you have to realize that sometimes Sometimes you have to do what's best for the american people Then there was this Chittering all me a little In other words bob learned then and there They know what's best for the american people that's what they're going to tell the american people and In february 2003 newsweek had the transcript of the un debriefing of Saddam hussein's son-in-law Who was in in charge of weapons of mass destruction and the debrief said they were all destroyed all destroyed chemical biological Had oakley or episode such as they were and the the means for delivery that was given to newsweek by scott ridder late february 2003 Newsweek put up a little little things. Oh, we have this report from the un And then they went up to the to the agency cia. Okay, and the others are you know, what about this? What about this? it's It's bull. It's it's crazy. Don't publish on it and these correspondents said Thank you cia p.r. Person. We were going to tell that story This was one month before the attack on it on iraq. So he got newsweek It's just kind of a prototype of all this stuff bob learned that in a most poignant way when he spoke out of term out of turn and saying Jones go craft. Do you mean you advise your successor? to persure himself before congress bob was a rock. He taught me a lot about journalism. So has joe and I'm appreciative for the chance to say these things Thank you very very much ray And thank you francis borel for coming in when you did and alexander Always a pleasure to have you back here talking about something other than ukraine and And craig murray. I think this is your first time on Our webcast and I really appreciate you coming on. I hope you see you back again And let me thank elizabeth voss my co-host and kathy wogan back in sydney australia who was producing all this at an ungodly hour So for consortium news and cn live. This is your lawyer I thank again everyone for tuning into this discussion and we'll be back on On the airs very soon to continue with this and other stories. Goodbye Thanks joe If you are a consumer of independent news in the first place You should be going to is consortium news and please do try to support them when you can It doesn't have its articles behind a paywall. It's free for everyone It's one of the best news sites out there and it's been in the business of independent journalism and adversarial independent journalism For over two decades. I hope that with the public's continuing support of consortium news. It will continue for a very long time to come Thank you so much