Krystal and Saagar discuss Biden threatening to halt weapons to Israel over Rafah, Senator calls for protesters to be on no fly list, and UN Human Rights lawyer Francesca Albanese joins to discuss Israel and Gaza.
To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: https://breakingpoints.supercast.com/
Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here
and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent.
Speaker 3 (00:15):
Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
If you like what we're all about, it just means
the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that,
let's get to the show. Good morning everybody, Happy Thursday.
We have an amazing show for everybody today.
Speaker 4 (00:28):
What do we have, Crystal, indeed we do.
Speaker 1 (00:30):
We have some big breaking news to talk to you
about this morning. President Biden on CNN last night saying
he would hold some arm shipments to Israel if they
launch a quote major invasion in Darrafa. What exactly does
that mean? What are the implications, what are the reactions?
A lot to dig into there. We also have some
updates for you on the former president Donald Trump catching
(00:50):
additional legal breaks.
Speaker 4 (00:52):
So we'll take a look at that.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
Meanwhile, RFK Junior it was revealed suffered a I guess
you would say, rather unique medical conditionvolving his brain.
Speaker 3 (01:00):
And literal reworms. Yeah, not to joke.
Speaker 4 (01:04):
Every joke has already been made. It's literally true. Write
that down Rio his response. All of that good stuff.
Speaker 1 (01:11):
Also really fascinating report and some new numbers about how
there's been a nature population shift in the last several
years out of cities and into rural America. You know,
the question was after the pandemic, would that shift back,
because we saw that during.
Speaker 4 (01:24):
The pandemic with the remote work boom.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
It doesn't look like it. It looks like this trend
is kind of here to stay. So obviously that has
huge implications, and we are really excited to be joined
today by the UN Special Rappertur for Human Rights in
the Occupied Territories. Francesca Albanize is going to join us
for an extended interview. Obviously incredibly relevant to talk to
her today as a potential invasion into Rafa Loom.
Speaker 4 (01:45):
She's been taking a look.
Speaker 1 (01:46):
Not only she published a report saying that there were
reasonable grounds to believe Israel is committing genocide in the
Gaza strip, but she's also been taking a close look
at the humanitarian situation and the status of AID, what's
going in, what's not going in. So really excited to
get to talk to her and hear her perspective on
all of these things today.
Speaker 3 (02:03):
Yeah, it's gonna be interesting.
Speaker 2 (02:04):
To my knowledge, hasn't done a lot of interviews, especially
with a lot of media outlets, and we've been working
on this for quite some time.
Speaker 3 (02:09):
So that's gonna be fun.
Speaker 2 (02:10):
Before we get to that, though, we have interesting teas
that we can give all of you counterpoints.
Speaker 3 (02:15):
Hosted another one of their debates.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
It will be dropping for premium subscribers tonight and it
will be publicly available on Friday. But the important thing
here is about what it was revealed. So it was
Ilia Shapiro versus Glenn Greenwald on the topic of free speech.
Those of you who may not know, Ilia Shapiro is
a well known figure here in Washington, works at the
Manhattan Institute, previously at the Cato Institute, a libertarian constitutional lawyer,
(02:41):
but recently has taken very much of a turn to
try and I'll just say this, he's taken a turn
to go against some principles that I think previously would
have rubbed up against free speech.
Speaker 3 (02:51):
I don't put that in the kindest way possible.
Speaker 2 (02:53):
Glenn Greenwald debated him also on the subject, specifically, not
only around free speech, but whether the government and should
be cracking down on organizations that are calling for ceasefires
back in campus protests and all that.
Speaker 3 (03:05):
So we have a little teas that we can show
all of you. Let's take a lesson.
Speaker 5 (03:08):
Glenn asked about Jewish Voices for Peace. That's a fact question,
as lawyers would call it. This is why Attorney General
of Virginia, Jason Miaris, among others, are investigating the various
contacts between these organizations.
Speaker 6 (03:21):
And that doesn't bother you that Jewish Voice for Our
Peace are being criminally investigated. This is righting attorney generals
who love Israel. That doesn't bother you.
Speaker 5 (03:32):
Jewish Voices seems to me like the Holy Roman Empire,
and that it's neither holy, nor Roman nor an empire.
JVP is neither Jewish nor voices nor for.
Speaker 3 (03:40):
People cares what you think of their opinions.
Speaker 6 (03:42):
They have every right to engage in the American student.
Speaker 5 (03:47):
I'm not saying they should be prosecuted for their speech.
I'm saying if investigations reveal that they're part of a
terrorist financing network and organizational instructure, then they should be
thrown off campus as a corporate body. This is not
about the rights of students or what they're saying whether
they should be prosecuted for that, and stop conflating those
kinds of issues.
Speaker 6 (04:06):
No, but first of all, they have been thrown off
many campuses, and the argument is the same theory that
rondasantis use. If you accuse student student groups that are
in favor of the propolicanting cause of being guilty for
material support of terrorism, which is what you have to
claim in order to justify banning them from campus. Otherwise
(04:26):
it's such an obvious violation of the First Amendment free
speech if you don't have another pretext. And that's why
fire dot org took such great offense to what DeSantis
did in other colleges as well. If you if you
claim they're guilty of material support for terrorism as it
grounds for banning them from campus, obviously you're accusing them
of felonies. That's what material support. You're not allowed to
(04:47):
give material support.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
Anyways, let's just say there's a lot more that came
from this over an hour, so if you want to
watch it and support the work the Counterpoints is doing
in our expansion breakingpoints dot com. Thank you everybody who
has been I think they've just been putting out excellent content.
Speaker 3 (05:02):
They have the Don Lemon thing, I.
Speaker 2 (05:04):
Mean, the Destiny debate was good, this in particular, So
this is just more of what you can expect.
Speaker 3 (05:08):
And people are starting to take notice, right.
Speaker 2 (05:10):
They understand this is a place where we can convene
things and they're really leaning into that. So congratulations to them,
and thank you to everybody for supporting them.
Speaker 1 (05:17):
Yeah, thank you guys for making this happen. It's also
cool now we're Monday through Friday. Yeah, I haven't watched
this one yet. I'm very much looking forward to it.
I'm less familiar with Ilia obviously. Glenn we know very well,
and he's never afraid of a fight.
Speaker 2 (05:29):
No, he's and you know, CoP's doing it two for
showing up. A lot of people won't do it, so
I'll at least he at least showed up. It went
up against Glenn, who you know, who's going to give
it to.
Speaker 1 (05:37):
Me exactly whatever, Like whether you agree or disagree with Glenn,
I think everyone respects his debating abilities, so to show
up and rop your position, listen. Respect for being willing
to do that. And I'm personally looking forward to having
a chance to take a look. So, like Soccer said,
if you guys want to get that early, it's going
to drop tonight for premium subscribers. It'll be available for
everyone tomorrow. With that, let's go ahead and get to
(06:00):
the news of the day. So the big breaking news
this morning, and this is quite significant.
Speaker 4 (06:05):
President Biden gave.
Speaker 1 (06:06):
An exclusive interview to CNN's Aaron Burnett last night made
some big news. This comes in the wake of the
revelation that the US had paused a shipment of two
thousand pound bombs that was slated to go to Israel.
Speaker 4 (06:21):
That news leaked out.
Speaker 1 (06:22):
President Biden in this interview, revealing that he is saying
if they launch a major invasion into Rafa, he will
block additional weapons shipments.
Speaker 4 (06:32):
Let's take a listen to exactly what he had to say.
Speaker 7 (06:34):
I want to ask you about something happening as we
sit here and speak, and that of course, Israel is
striking Rafa. I know that you have paused, mister President,
shipments of two thousand pound US bombs to Israel due
to concern that they could be used in any offensive
on Rafa. Have those bombs, those powerful two thousand pound
(06:55):
bombs been used to kill civilians in Gaza.
Speaker 8 (07:00):
Have been killed in Gaza as a consequence of those
bombs and other ways in which they go after population centers.
And I made it clear that if they go into Rafa,
they haven't gone on Raffa yet, they go into Rafa,
I'm not supplying the weapons that have been used historically
to deal with Rafa, to deal with the cities, to
(07:20):
deal with that problem. We're going to continue to make
sure because you're less secure in terms of Iron Dome
and their ability to respond to attacks that came out
of you the UH Middle least recently. But it's it's
just wrong. We're not going to We're not going to
supply the weapons and the artillery shells used that have been.
Speaker 9 (07:41):
Used artillery shells as well, Yeah, artillery shells.
Speaker 7 (07:45):
So just to understand what they're doing right now in Rafa,
is that not going into Rafa as you don't.
Speaker 8 (07:53):
They haven't gone in the population centers. What they did,
it's right on the border and it's causing problems with
right now. In terms of with Egypt, which I've worked
very hard to make sure we have a relationship and help.
But I've made it clear to BB in the work Cabinet,
They're not going to get our support if in fact
they're going these population centers.
Speaker 1 (08:14):
So he says here they haven't gone into Rafa, which
is a little confusing because they have. But now we're
kind of adjusting where the redline was. Previous it was
no invasion of Rafa. Then it was no invasion that
didn't account for humanitarianism. Now it's no incursion into major
population centers. So a lot of questions about exactly what
(08:35):
this means Sager, but you know, obviously very noteworthy. We'll
show you in a minute after I get Sager's reactions
some of the already you know, freak out from the right,
certainly total freak out from the Israeli side. Also very
noteworthy that he says these two thousand pound bombs have
been used to kill civilians, which raises the question also
(08:56):
of okay, so if you knew that, why did we
move Haaven and Earth to pass billions of dollars just
a couple of weeks ago more in aid to ship
more of these weapons that you are acknowledging have been
used to massacre civilians?
Speaker 4 (09:10):
So what do you make of these comments?
Speaker 3 (09:12):
It's just sheer incoherence because it is.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
The State Department just yesterday put on permanent pause any
report that would prove exactly what the President of the
United States just said. There's no substantive difference between Israeli
action in Rafa than there would be in communist or
in Gaza City. So what you know, change has happened here.
If anything, you've empowered the Israeli right, the Israeli military actions,
(09:34):
We've reaped the worst rewards, not only of civilian casualties,
but of international standing to Israel itself, to the United
States and its international community, obviously domestic turmoil here at home,
and now all of a sudden we seem to be
changing things up as if they've been going. It just
it makes very little sense and it actually sticks with
Biden to me, which is its incoherent. It has no
(09:56):
basis in actual like and stratage in terms of where
things are going. There's a question too as to whether
this is just being fed up over a hostage deal,
whether this is posturing in terms of negotiation out look,
I mean, I want to be clear and I want
to say this. I do support withholding or conditioning aid
based upon what the US does.
Speaker 3 (10:17):
That seems like a basic thing.
Speaker 2 (10:18):
But as we'll show you with some of our Republican
neocons here in Washington, that is anathema. Whenever you're an ally,
apparently you're owed anything that you could ever want from
the US Treasury. Really only oh well, we'll get to that. Well,
you know, no, that's a Ukraine Erasier crystal, of course,
and that's important, you know, to try and to underscore this.
(10:39):
So I would put this in the same way that
Biden was on Afghanistan, where you know, he eventually decides
to pull out. He does frankly and like one of
the worst most domestically politically disastrous ways possible. Prior to
that extends US troop levels in Afghanistan, but then it
backs Ukraine to the hill. He just has no coherence
or strategy in what he's being built upon. So I
(11:01):
will at least endorse the idea of conditioning AID. Well,
I support that, not just Asrael, by the way, all
nations that the United States were to give to. So
I don't know of a mixed bag. I wonder what
you think about it.
Speaker 4 (11:12):
Yeah, I mean there's a lot to say about this.
Speaker 1 (11:14):
First of all, we don't even really know what I
mean right, because he's out here saying like, well, they
haven't gone into run.
Speaker 4 (11:19):
Well they have gone into profas.
Speaker 1 (11:20):
So is this red line any more meaningful than previous ones.
Speaker 4 (11:24):
We don't know. We don't know.
Speaker 1 (11:26):
Apparently, you know, the behind the receipt scenes reporting I
was reading Peter Baker this morning the New York Times,
is that the US wanted to quietly pause these shipments
as a use of private leverage against Israel. The Israelis
leaked the news in advance of Holocaust Remembrance Day. Apparently,
(11:47):
this interview with Biden was it was intentional that this
came after he gives the big Holocaust remembrance speech, once
again painting all the college protesters, who he apparently agrees
with in some respects as anti Semites. And so he
does that, then he comes out and makes this announcement,
and I think it just it's to be determined if
(12:07):
it means anything.
Speaker 4 (12:08):
At all, I guess is what I would say.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
And there's also a lot of reporting, you know, people
behind the scenes saying, listen, this doesn't mean that Israel's
not going to get every penny of the whatever fourteen
billion dollars that was just passed for it. He makes
sure to say offensive weapons. So there's a limit to
you know, in terms of how far he's willing to
go in terms of conditioning AID, if that AID even
is conditioned. So what is a major invasion? What are
(12:31):
we counting as a population center? We don't have a
lot of clarity with regards to any of that, so
TBD whether this means anything at all, I think another
you know, you just have to ask, like if you
know that our two thousand pound bombs are being used
to mass or civilians, which anyone who's looking at this
conflict knows and has known for literally months. I mean,
(12:53):
when was it that it got dropped on that refugee camp,
killing hundreds of people to possibly maybe you get one
Hamas fighters.
Speaker 3 (13:02):
I'm that in November that I want to say that.
Speaker 1 (13:04):
So we've known this for a long time. So the
most obvious question is what the hell took so long?
Most of the Gaza Strip is completely destroyed. Gaza City
con unis just rubble.
Speaker 4 (13:17):
There's more rubble.
Speaker 1 (13:18):
Gaza is tiny, right, It's like the size of Manhattan basically,
and there is more rubble in the Gaza Strip than
there is in all of Ukraine. Okay, in a much
shorter period time and a much, much, much much smaller
land mass forty thousand Palestinians. We really don't know the toll,
to be honest with you, dead all six hundred thousand
(13:39):
kids in Rafa are injured, sick, malnourished. You've got babies
starving to death, and so you just look at it.
You're like, I'm with you, said, of course, yes, this
is the correct position.
Speaker 4 (13:50):
What the hell took you so long?
Speaker 1 (13:54):
I think one thing we have to say is the
protests seem to be putting pressure on them, like they
seem to be feeling certainly the political heat from the
protest movement across the country, from the fact that, you know,
public opinion and especially Democratic opinion, is very much against
Joe Biden on this. There's a new poll yesterday from ZTEO.
(14:15):
Fifty seven percent of Democrats say yes, it's a genocide,
only some twenty percent say it's not. Firmatively say it's not.
So he's dramatically at odds with the Democratic Party. He
knows this is a political problem for him. I think
that's why this is happening right now. He is very
reluctant to make any change in the unconditional support of
Israel policy. And so I think you have to say
(14:36):
that that political pressure is part of why you're getting
at least this rhetorical shift, and what appears to have
been more than a rhetorical shift at least in terms
of pausing one shipment for now.
Speaker 3 (14:48):
I think it's possible it could be.
Speaker 2 (14:49):
I'm actually not sure how much it has to do
with the domestic political pressure. I'm starting to think a
lot of it could also be in terms of international pressure,
because what we should remember is that Arafa c invasion
cross and all that is a genuine demarcation point, both
for Turkey and for Egypt, and so there is and
has been a lot of leaking behind the scenes. I
don't I think you might have seen this as well.
(15:09):
Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Saudi Arabia used
the term genocide for the very first time actually after
the Rafa invasion.
Speaker 3 (15:17):
So there was the threatening of total.
Speaker 2 (15:18):
International isolation of the US from Saudi Arabia, from Egypt
and from others. And the Egyptians in particular have been
putting huge and tremendous pressure behind the scenes because it
is a breach of the nineteen seventy two agreements. I'm
not saying that domestic political pressure didn't have anything. It's
a confluence events like anything else. I do think though,
we shouldn't, you know, we should remember that the US
(15:39):
position in the Middle East has been so degraded now
at this point that this really could have been a
genuine break, you know, to actually see a full on
invasion of Rafa. For we already saw with the Saudis,
which is a key strategic ally for the US, and
obviously they've got their finger on the Opec oil and
Biden doesn't want to screw with that. The Egyptians and
the NATO, I mean, one of the things that we
(16:00):
can't forget either is Turkey after the invasion of Rafa
was announced, pulled all trade with Israel. It was a major,
major point in terms of international politics. So I think
that that was a significant driver of the fact as well.
Speaker 1 (16:13):
Maybe, but in my experience, the US response doesn't really
care that much about international opinion or like, you know,
what's out of like what the Egyptians saying, we fund
them significantly to we give them a huge amount of aid,
and certainly politicians do have a track record of caring
about their own re election prospects. So don't know, like
(16:33):
you said, could have been a confluence of factors. But
I think the fact that the protests have become so heated,
such a divisive issue within the Democratic Party, and that
Democratic public sentiment has gone so aggressively against Joe Biden,
public sentiment in general has gone so aggressively against Joe Biden,
I would say, has to be considered as a factor here,
you know, in terms of the response.
Speaker 4 (16:53):
Ryan made this point on Twitter yesterday, which is so true.
Speaker 1 (16:56):
Like Joe Biden has been the most pro Israel president
I think in American history. I think it's hard to
argue otherwise. At every turn he has given them everything
they wanted, from diplomatic cover obviously, the weapons and the aid.
He's gone out and gone with bb Netanya who's lines
neraring college kids as Nazis. Like every step of the way,
(17:18):
it has been the bear huck. And yet the minute
that he even threatens to pause weapons shipments, even you know,
to condition aid at all, everyone who's pro is Or,
including John Fetterman, all of the Mike Johnson, Mitch McConnell,
et cetera.
Speaker 4 (17:36):
They turn like that.
Speaker 1 (17:37):
I mean, he doesn't get any credit from them about
the fact that he did unconditionally support them. It was
the most pro Israel president that we've literally ever had
in history. The Minity changes man that the knives are
out for him. Let's put this up on the screen.
You've got Bill Ackman, billionaire's been just you know, causing
all kinds of trouble and really involved in the whole
(17:57):
campus situation, funded those violent counter protesters in UCLA.
Speaker 4 (18:01):
Says crazy. This is one of.
Speaker 1 (18:03):
The worst acts against an ally of a sitting president ever.
Hopefully this means he won't be sitting for much longer.
You've gotten Mitt Romney says, we stand by allies, we
don't second guess them. Biden's dithering on Israel weapons is
bad policy and a terrible message to Israel, our allies,
and the world. So obviously that the you know, vehemently
(18:23):
pro Israel crowd immediately turns on him, and as Ryan
pointed out on Twitter, like the left progressives are never
going to forgive him at this point, Like there are
so many dead and so much destruction, it really doesn't
matter what he does. You can't you can't undo the
death and the damage and the trauma that has already
been caused. So politically, you know, he's made his own bed.
(18:45):
And the other thing that I point out too is,
you know, day before he was basically painting Israel criticism
as anti Semitic. So if that's your framework, and then
the very next day you are yourself sizing Israel and
you know, voicing some of the concerns that this protest
movement is all about. Yeah, again, you've made your own bed.
(19:08):
You've set the political framework that being critical of Israel
in any way is effectively equivalent to being a Nazi.
And then you you know, guess what happens when you
then have to go and criticize Israel. The pro Israel
crowd paints you exactly the way that they do these
you know, student protesters who are on college campuses.
Speaker 2 (19:26):
Yeah, let me reiterate what Mitt Romney said. We stand
by allies, we don't second guess them. Biden's dithering is
bad policy and a terrible message is crazy. Get yeah,
exactly how many Israeli troops served in Afghanistan?
Speaker 3 (19:40):
Anyone want to know? Zero?
Speaker 2 (19:41):
How many Israelly troops served in Iraq? Even though they're
the ones who asked us to go in there. Zero
how many is how much Israeli dollars supported the US
Global War on Terror in both of those zero I
can go on forever. I mean, where there israelly troops
on the ground in Vietnam. No, it's like, what ally
are we talking about here?
Speaker 4 (20:00):
Yeah, this is so crazy.
Speaker 1 (20:02):
This is the John Fatterman line, is like, it doesn't
matter what they do, We're gonna support them no matter what.
Speaker 4 (20:06):
And it's like, that is insane. Even if you're just.
Speaker 1 (20:10):
Looking at narrow American interests, it's insane. Obviously if you're
looking at morality, you're literally saying like, no, I don't
think they're doing a gemside, but even if they were,
I would still support them. Like what, how can It
doesn't matter what they do, You're gonna send them whatever
they want, no matter what. That is crazy, It makes
no sense. And yet this is I mean, really, Israel
(20:33):
is very unique. You might put Ukraine in the same category.
I think Israel's very unique in people's willingness to just
say nope, don't care, don't care how many civilians are
just lotter, don't care that it's against her and just
don't care that we've turned all of the Middle East
against us, don't care that our troops are being fired
on because of Israel's policy, our support of Israel's policy,
don't care.
Speaker 4 (20:52):
It's Israel no matter what.
Speaker 1 (20:54):
Like you didn't you didn't swear an oath to Israel
when you were born in as a United States senator.
And but that's the way they act, like we're going
to put their interest over American interests, setting it explicitly.
I just it blows my mind, honestly blows my mind.
Speaker 2 (21:10):
I would be remissed if I didn't shout out of
Jonah Goldberg. This is a gentleman, one of those never
trumpers out there. He actually I have a personal beef
because he implied I was anti Semitic whenever I said
that the US military should only be used to defend America.
Speaker 4 (21:25):
That never happens.
Speaker 2 (21:26):
They never throw that flame around for what were I
have heard from a lot of reliably anti Trump people,
I mean really really anti Trump people have had it
with Biden tonight. Anecdotal but very telling in my circle.
So this is I mean, it was just digging about it.
It's like Afghanistan, you know, which they also had dual
loyalty to It's like one of those Oh that was fine,
you know all these other things they supposedly stand for conservatives.
(21:49):
I was, oh, that's just not a tumbbout Israel. That's
the one where we got to turn. Let's go and
put the next one up on the screen. It has
some of the details that Crystal was talking about. Militarily,
Actually there's some nificance here, but because we're specifically talking
about the two thousand and the five hundred pound bombs,
so it was eighteen hundred two thousand pound bombs and
seventeen hundred five hundred pound bombs quote long seen as
(22:10):
experts most likely to be targeted for any potential restrictions
because not only how destructive they are in urban settings,
but because of Israel's inability to actually manufacture or buy
them for themselves. That's another thing that is not talked
about enough here. Israel is a wealthy nation. Anybody who's
ever been there, it's like being in California. I mean literally,
(22:31):
they have universal health care, they have a crazy social
welfare state. They have the ability to support a massive
chunk of their population which does not work and is
paid by the state to have children and pray all day,
and you know, that's their society.
Speaker 3 (22:47):
They could do what they want.
Speaker 2 (22:49):
But I personally think that in the wealthy startup nation
that they love to brag about, for anybody who's ever
been there, you know what I'm saying, Well, they can
pay for their own shit. Is that really such a
controversial position. But as you said, Crystal, in the United
States of America, that is a very controversial position to take.
Speaker 1 (23:06):
There was also a discourse really a while back. It's
kind of a dead discourse now at this point because
it's so like patently obviously false. But of this whole like,
you know, well, Israel's their own country, and we really
don't have any say over what they do, you know,
like we don't really have any leverage. All these people
who claim that we could just you know, on a dime,
we could do something and they change their behavior.
Speaker 4 (23:28):
This is crazy. Clearly we do have leverage. Clearly it
does matter.
Speaker 1 (23:32):
There's already reports and is there's really press about how
dire it would get for them very quickly if we
actually cut off all of these weapons shipments.
Speaker 4 (23:42):
They would be in a real bind.
Speaker 1 (23:44):
They have to make some real decisions about what they
can and can't do, because remember they're not just in
the Gaza strip. They're also taking actions in the West Bank.
They're also you know, fighting on the Northern Front versus Hezbola.
You know, they had the back and forth with Iran
very recently that was started, let's never forget by their
provocation of bombing an Iranian embassy building in Damascus. It
(24:09):
really is important for people to understand all of this
is allowed and enabled by us. It can't happen with
on us, It really can't, it really can't, not just
from the weapons, from the diplomatic cover. How integral were
we shot down most of the Iranian drones and missiles
that were headed to is Or. We shot down a
majority of them. And that's why you know, this kind
(24:31):
even though there aren't US troops involved, although US troops
are coming under fire because of our support for Israeli actions,
but even though it's not directly our boots on the
ground in Gaza, we are so integral to this we
allow this to happen. And so yeah, there's a you know,
there's a full freak out about what it could mean.
(24:52):
Even just the pause of these shipments, some of that
freak out was was evidenced even after before or Biden
made these latest comments, after it came became public that
a weapon shipment had been paused. We have an Israeli
member the Kanessa and Lakud official, Tollie Gottlieb, who had
this to say. We can put this up on the
(25:13):
screen and I'll read it. She says, the US is
threatening not to give us precise missiles. Oh yeah, well
I got news for the US. We have imprecise missiles
and we have the right to defend ourselves. So maybe
instead of using a precise missile and taking down a
specific room or a specific building, I'll use my imprecise
missiles and I'll just collapse ten buildings, ten buildings, That's
(25:37):
what I'll do.
Speaker 9 (25:39):
She So.
Speaker 1 (25:41):
Just think about this, like, because you are withholding two
thousand pounds bombs, precise weapons because out of accountability for
our war crimes and the fact they've been used to
bomb civilians, guess what our response is to bomb even
more civilians.
Speaker 4 (25:59):
And you know, once again.
Speaker 1 (26:00):
A lot of discourse about what college students have to
say about this conflict. This is a member of the Kanesse,
a senior party official of Baby at Nyahu's party. This
is a powerful individual, and she talks in a just
brazenly atrocious manner and yes, genocidal manner about how she'll
(26:21):
take down ten buildings.
Speaker 4 (26:22):
She doesn't care.
Speaker 1 (26:24):
And the gall of these people after all that Joe
Biden has stood by you while you did, and the
minute there's even a little bit of a critique, they flip.
Speaker 4 (26:36):
On a dime and they're completely indignant.
Speaker 1 (26:38):
Ryan Grim, our own Ryan Grim at the State Department
briefing yesterday, asked Matthew Miller about these comments and pretty
surprisingly actually got a response.
Speaker 4 (26:48):
Let's take a listen to that.
Speaker 10 (26:49):
Leave Lacuda official. Remember the Kanessa. She said this, She said,
the US is threatening not to give us precise missiles.
Oh yeah, well, I've got news for the US. We
have imprecise missiles. We'll use it. We'll just collapse ten buildings,
ten buildings.
Speaker 3 (27:02):
That's what we'll do.
Speaker 10 (27:03):
So she's threatening that if Israel is held accountable for
war crimes, they will respond by committing greater war crimes.
What kind of effect does that have?
Speaker 9 (27:10):
I'd say those decision making.
Speaker 11 (27:11):
Those comments are absolutely deplorable, and senior members of the
Israeli government should refrain from making them. We will continue
to make our policy assessments based on what's in the
best interests of the American people, what is in the
best interests.
Speaker 9 (27:26):
Of the region.
Speaker 1 (27:27):
Absolutely deplorable. I'm surprised you got a response, because usually
all just be like, oh, I didn't see it, or
we'll look into it, or you know, they shouldn't say
bad things, but we support them, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 4 (27:37):
But he got a direct response.
Speaker 3 (27:38):
Yes, he certainly did.
Speaker 2 (27:40):
There's also this, This is my personal favorite, Crystal, I'll
put this up please on the screen, is that the
Israeli government is now warning that they they're warning the
US that if you pause weapons, that will jeopardize hostage negotiations.
So they're basically saying, if you take weapons away from us,
then we will pull out of hostage negotiations, and we
need those weapons to continue the war so we can
free the hostages.
Speaker 3 (28:00):
Do you understand what I'm saying.
Speaker 2 (28:01):
Yes, it's a very interesting circular logic that we all
have here in terms of the end result.
Speaker 3 (28:07):
I genuinely don't know.
Speaker 2 (28:08):
I saw It's von ben Gevier a tweet out this
morning coromote quote Hamas Heart Biden, which.
Speaker 3 (28:13):
Is not pretty instinct.
Speaker 2 (28:14):
That's correct for a I mean a member of the
Israeli government. I would not tolerate that from any foreign
government who is a recipient of foreign aid if I
were Biden. Apparently he's been tolerating things like that now
for quite some time.
Speaker 3 (28:28):
But yeah, it gets me to the point of just like,
who do you think you are?
Speaker 12 (28:31):
Man?
Speaker 3 (28:31):
Who again, who do you think you are?
Speaker 2 (28:33):
Yeah, you have armed weapons manufacturers in your country? No,
you know you need us, So how about you shut
your mouth and actually show us a little bit of respect.
But that's their arrogance, that's who they are.
Speaker 1 (28:43):
Well, and we know where that arrogance comes from, because
they've gotten away with everything up to this point. I
mean every like everything that the Biden has expressed was
a problem for him that he's asked to do and
had these tough conversations and very tough conversations about they
just did it anyway. I mean the strike on the
Ranian diplomatic building that was apparently that wasn't cleared with
(29:03):
the U.
Speaker 4 (29:04):
They just did it.
Speaker 1 (29:05):
And then you know, our have to drag our asses
into this thing and shoot down the missiles, make sure
that we're protecting Israel, etcetera, etcetera.
Speaker 4 (29:12):
So Biden has created.
Speaker 1 (29:14):
This climate of you know, just total brazen arrogance and
indifference to what the you know, American president might think
about things. He created that climate, and in terms of
the discourse, he fueled that discourse as well. You know,
how many times have we heard that, Oh, anyone who
(29:34):
anyone who's out protesting against this war, against Israeli actions
in the Gaza strip, they love Hamas, They're terrors, they
are Hamas, they say, I am Hamas, et cetera. So
when you co sign that branding of the entire movement
as being pro Hamas, then don't be surprised when that
(29:54):
rhetoric's used against you.
Speaker 3 (29:56):
Yep. I couldn't agree with you more.
Speaker 2 (29:58):
And the end results of this will all be very interesting.
Will Biden stay the course, We'll see. He has been
very stubborn sometimes in the past. He is also very
willing to cave. Personally, I think he's going to cave.
This is the strongest lobby in the history of Washington,
in terms of his own the people who are around him,
in terms of what the I mean think too about
(30:19):
what the Israelies can mobilize for our own domestic politics.
Like you may think, these campus protests and all that
can make your life miserable. What's even more miserable is
when all your donors and all these other people who
are so into the cost start pulling money away and
start exerting their influence.
Speaker 3 (30:33):
I could start and.
Speaker 2 (30:33):
Plus the media whipping this up, you know, into a frenzy.
I wouldn't bet so bet. I would not bet a
lot that he stays the course on this.
Speaker 4 (30:40):
Oh yeah, so tbd.
Speaker 1 (30:42):
What if anything these comments actually meant. Meanwhile, there's been
an insane legislative response to, in particular the campus protests.
The latest entry into this book as Marshall Blackburn, who
previously said that student protesters should be put on a
terrorism no fly list, she is now actually working to
(31:05):
codify that, drafting legislation along with Centator Roger Marshall that
would do exactly that. She talked about her plans on
her Instagram. Let's take a listen.
Speaker 9 (31:14):
Here's what I believe.
Speaker 12 (31:16):
If they are foreign students and they're here on a visa,
we will pull the visa and deport them. They will
never come back in this country. If they're American students
in their own student loans that are text Bay or
funded by the way, let's pull those student loans. Anyone
who stands in shouts I am humus. Then what they
(31:40):
should do is to be placed on the terrorist watch list.
If they're going to tell us they are a terrorist,
we should believe them.
Speaker 2 (31:51):
And obviously the no fly list there actually pretty well.
Because the thing is is that in that video Crystal
she advocates just for foreign students, but actually, if you
take a look at the legislation, we can put this
up there on the screen, it would actually designate student
protesters as terrorists and add them to the no filists.
So this actually includes US citizens, a genuine breach in.
Speaker 3 (32:15):
My opinion of constitutional rights.
Speaker 4 (32:18):
Unfortunately.
Speaker 2 (32:18):
Yeah, but unfortunately, during the War on Terror, as we
all discovered, being on the no filist actually doesn't technically
violate your constitutional rights according to the Bush administration, the
Department of Justice, and some Supreme Court litigation that unfortunately
did not go the way that it should have. So
this again actually demonstrates the danger of the post nine
to eleven security state as it is then applied to
(32:39):
US citizens and specifically actually in this case, because we
are talking about people who are protesting in that case.
I mean, I'm not going to defend the no filists
of that time, but the justification was is that they're
actively members of a.
Speaker 3 (32:52):
Foreign terrorist organization, right.
Speaker 2 (32:53):
In this case, like aiding and abetting the enemy, right,
Like genuinely treasonous behavior. Again, it was the way it
was applied diculous, and hence I don't support it. In
this case though, we're talking about people who are protesting
the actions of a foreign government then being labeled as
terrorists and being included on the no filist Another thing
I would point out to many of our right wing
listeners is don't forget how there were no flylist was
(33:14):
trotted out after the January sixth prosecutions and members of
the you know Trump you know or whatever pro Trump
MAGA people were also placed on the no fly list
as well, debanked, and basically had the power of both
the state and the non institutional parties or institutional non
governmental organizations thrown at you.
Speaker 3 (33:32):
We're watching the exact same thing that's happened in play
out right here.
Speaker 1 (33:35):
I mean, it is so clear that whyatt was so
important to oppose things like this at the time during
the War on Terror, because you could see the way
even though the public was all behind it and it
felt good at yeah, we're going to make sure these
terrorists can't fly and we got to keep ourselves safe.
Like it was very it was very understandable that the
(33:56):
public had that sentiment, but you had to look at
the details and say, well, how else could this be used?
How is it being there's literally no judicial oversight of this.
It's kept secret. Who's being even put on this list.
Those were all massive problems and red flags at the time.
And now the way that we see it's being used
against American citizens who it would apply to, Like you know,
(34:19):
these kids who are camping out on their campuses, they
get charged with trust passing boom, you're a terrorist and
you're on a no fly list. Like that's crazy. It's
absolutely crazy if you look at if you look at that, Texas.
That's not the only legislative initiative either. We didn't pull
an element for this one. But I was just telling
Soccer this morning. There's another bill that was introduced by
(34:41):
Andy Ogles of Tennessee and Jeff Duncan of South Carolina
and Randy Weber of Texas that would send college protesters
to Gaza for six months if they, I believe a
similar thing, if they, like you know, were charged with
trespassing or some sort of like broken window or whatever,
(35:06):
then they would be sent to Gaza for six months.
And the thing that Andy Ogle said about this is
like they wouldn't last a minute there, and it's like, yeah,
that's their point, is that Gaza is under a massive
assault and.
Speaker 4 (35:17):
People are being starved. Like if you.
Speaker 1 (35:19):
Support that, maybe you're the one that should be sent
to Gaza. If you think there's rarely military is so
humane and everything's all well and good and Gaza, perhaps
you're the one who should go and tell us how
great it is, tell us how much aid is going in,
let us know how it's going there. So, I mean,
just the climate is I've never seen anything. I even
going back to the height of the War on Terror,
(35:40):
I genuinely have not seen anything quite like what we're experiencing.
Speaker 2 (35:44):
I think the War on Terror was worse, you know,
freedom fries and all that. Let's not erase some of
the other insanity that happened at that time. The other
thing we can point out to let's put this up
there on the screen. And I guess what makes it
crazier is that we're we are displaying significant similar levels
of his area on behalf of a country and of
a conflict of which we are not even technically the
(36:06):
primary actor in.
Speaker 3 (36:07):
And I think that is what is so calling.
Speaker 2 (36:09):
Here we have from Jewish Insider House bills will ask
the US Holocaust Museum to develop curriculum on the October
seventh attack, creating resources for secondary schools and elementary schools
to teach about October seven and subsequent anti Semitic and
anti Israel sentiment. Now, the reason you should all be
very afraid of this is because, unlike the Andy Oogles bill,
(36:31):
this thing actually has a chance of going somewhere, and
going somewhere, I think, well, don't forget the International Holocaust
Remembrance definition of anti Semitism is the exact definition of
anti Semitism, which was then passed through the US Congress.
So this demonstrates very clearly that we would be using
definitions outsourcing them to foreign organizations or non governmental organs.
(36:53):
They should have a direct interest in protecting the State
of Israel and pushing an agenda and then importing and
putting that into US classrooms.
Speaker 3 (37:00):
Now, if we're talking about science, okay, that's.
Speaker 2 (37:02):
One thing, right, Well, we're talking about learning about a
foreign government. First of all, why should like little kids
even be learning about October seventh at all?
Speaker 3 (37:10):
Like, for what purpose?
Speaker 2 (37:12):
You know, whenever you're like sub eight years old, to
the extent they should learn about October seventh. Yeah, think
they should learn about autrocities, I guess all over the world,
and maybe about what happened subsequently in US support and
all of that. But we we don't even spend enough
time on our own history of like Vietnam or World
War One. I think we can spend a little bit
less time on the histories of other places.
Speaker 4 (37:31):
I mean, listen, you probably hear this and you're like, okay,
what's wrong with learning?
Speaker 3 (37:35):
No, you should have a problem with that.
Speaker 1 (37:36):
If it was going to be all right, we're going
to we're going to take a look at this comp
We're going to dig into the origins. We're going to
tell you what happened so you can understand why this,
you know, continues to persist in the nature of the occupation. No, no, no,
this is not what you're going to get from this
Josh Gottheimer bill. The bill requests the new curriculum include
information about October seventh attack, how the history of anti
Semitism contributed to the attack, not about the land dispute
(38:01):
in the occupation and the blockade, but the history of
anti Semitism, as President Biden said, the ancient hatreds and desires. Right,
that's the only thing that led to October seventh. Okay,
even though there were many non Jews who were killed
on that day. By the way, it's also going to
talk about the quote unquote spread of anti Semitism and
anti Israel rhetoric on campuses, conflating of course, anti Semitism
(38:24):
and anti Israel rhetoric and the spread of anti Israel
rhetoric on social media. So we've got to also learn
how TikTok was. You know, the real villain of October
seventh was actually TikTok. So it's not like you're getting
an actually factual understanding for our children of what led
(38:45):
to October seventh, what happened on October seventh, what happened
after October seventh. No, you're getting a it's like the
Israeli government wrote the propaganda piece for our own kids,
which in effect they basically are. Because I guarantee, if
you look at these two individuals who are sponsoring this
bill's contribution history, I would bet very strongly that they've
(39:06):
received some I know, for a fat Gotttheimer. I don't
really know the other dude that much, but that they've
received some campaign finance that may have, you know, helped
to fortify them in their pro Israel no matter what sentiment.
Speaker 4 (39:19):
Just a guess here, that's right.
Speaker 1 (39:23):
We are extraordinarily fortunate to be joined this morning by
Francesca Albaniz. She is an international lawyer and also the
UN's Special Rapperteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories.
Speaker 4 (39:33):
Welcome, it's great to have you.
Speaker 9 (39:35):
Thank you do so.
Speaker 1 (39:37):
To start with, I wanted to get your reaction to
some breaking news from yesterday President Biden saying that he
would halt some weaponshipments to Israel if they launched what
he described as a major invasion into Rafa. Given what
you know about the humanitarian situation on the ground in
Gaza and in Rafa specifically, I wonder if you could
(39:57):
speak to the significance of his comments.
Speaker 9 (40:02):
I welcome this decision.
Speaker 13 (40:04):
I wish it had come earlier because the situation in
the Gaza strip is catastrophic, and of course all the
more in Rapha, where one point five million people are amasked,
including six hundred thousand children. The fact that there is
no new shipment of weapons central Israel again is positive,
(40:25):
although I understand that Israel's reaction has been that they
will use.
Speaker 9 (40:29):
What I have.
Speaker 2 (40:32):
So one of the things that we wanted to get
from you is just a broader discussion of some of
the case that you had brought forward or had argued
before before the ICC. So I'm wondering if you could
give our audience, a US based audience, a view into
some of the case that facts in the matter that
you were able to discuss. Why you think it is
(40:53):
important now in this context, even with the war continuing.
Speaker 13 (40:58):
Well, the ICC has jurisdiction over crimes of war, crimes,
genocide and crimes against humanity, as well as the crime
and aggression.
Speaker 9 (41:10):
I do not have the detail.
Speaker 13 (41:12):
Of how the ic C and the Officer of the
Prosecutor are qualifying the crimes they might have found in
the context of their investigation in the situation of Palestine.
Speaker 9 (41:25):
But I, as you might know from my.
Speaker 13 (41:28):
Latest report presented to the Human Rights Counsel of the
United Nations. I think that the grounds to believe that
Israel has committed genocide in Gada are there, so I'm
anxious to tique the ICC proceeding with hopefully arrest warrants,
(41:49):
of course, both against Israeli leaders and Hamas leaders for
what has happened.
Speaker 4 (41:56):
On seventh over so Frantasica.
Speaker 1 (41:59):
In the context of your report, which found reasonable grounds
to believe that Israel is committing genocide in the Gaza Strip,
what Israel's defenders will say is they are working hard
to avoid civilian.
Speaker 4 (42:10):
Casualties in Rafa.
Speaker 1 (42:12):
They leafleitted asking people to evacuate. They say, listen, what
other country uses these sort of techniques to get civilians
out of harm's way. That it is Hamas's fault that
there has been such a high civilian death toll because
they operate out of population centers and places allegedly like hospitals.
What is your response to that critique of your analysis, Well.
Speaker 13 (42:37):
This is not what has happened on the ground in
Gaza for the past seven months, and again we are
talking of Uger half a year. All the casualties and
the destruction seventy percent of Gaza has been destroyed. In
terms of civilian infrastructure, including a livelihood, the essential livelihood.
(42:59):
There is a total located that has been ongoing which
prevents unfactored aid including water, of.
Speaker 9 (43:07):
Food, meditation, and fuel entering Gaza.
Speaker 13 (43:10):
This has been hampered over and over, and I reject
the argument that they have tried to avoid civilian casualties
because seventy percent of the victims of the reported victims
of this conflict have steadily been women and children, and
(43:31):
so this has been the situation that should have been
addressed from the first weeks of the conflict. That there
is another element to beta collected by many victims and
survivors that have investigated over the past months, they said
that since the very beginning they realized that Israel.
Speaker 9 (43:45):
Was after something else with this war because.
Speaker 13 (43:47):
They have seen Israel hitting indiscriminately symbols of Palestinian civilian
life like universities, churches, again, essential livelihoods and hospitals. I
also argue in the report that Israel has not rejected
(44:08):
the allegations of the conduct that test taken place. They
have differently qualified it, just defined it as in compliance
with international Human Italian law, which I called you, which
I call human Italian camouflash. Israel has justified by using
international human Italian law jargon its military operations, for example, saying, yeah,
but we ordered evacuations. The first evacuation was an evaluation
(44:32):
order that the target at one point one million people,
and it was said in an area that, by the way,
comprised the twenty two hospitals, and they said, never remains
behind will be considered a terrorist accomplice. And this is
not the way to protect civilians. All the more Over,
forty two percent of the casualties during the first weeks
(44:53):
and months of the conflict where in area that had
been identified as safe.
Speaker 9 (44:58):
This is very is very dangerous.
Speaker 13 (45:00):
It's an indication of how little precutions were taken. So
the principle of distinctions between civilians and military and the
principle of precutions were completed.
Speaker 2 (45:10):
One question I had for you was given that the
US and Israel, the two primary I guess the participants
on this side of the war, are not party to
the ICC. Why do you believe that it was important
to bring this case forward for your own participation if
there isn't going to be any immediate enforcement on behalf
(45:32):
of those two governments.
Speaker 9 (45:35):
Well, there is.
Speaker 13 (45:36):
A jurisdiction of the ICC over war happened in the
Occupied Palestine and territory.
Speaker 9 (45:45):
This is under the jurisdiction of the board.
Speaker 13 (45:47):
And these suppolls squarely in also the interest of Israel,
because Israel is the occupying power in the in Jaza Strip,
the West Bank and the Jerusalem.
Speaker 9 (46:00):
So despite the fact that Israel's.
Speaker 13 (46:02):
Not a member, is not a party to the Roman Statude,
it's directly affected by it.
Speaker 1 (46:09):
Francesca, I wonder if you could talk a little bit
about the current humanitarian situation on the ground. There have
been reports israel Is claiming that they've increased the amount
of aid that is going into the Gaza Strip. On
the other hand, you have Cindy McCain, the head of
the UN World Food program saying that northern Gaza is
(46:30):
in full blown famine and that is rapidly creeping south.
What can you say about the current situation whether there
has in fact been an increase in the amount of
aid getting into Gaza, that.
Speaker 13 (46:44):
Any increase is in the margins. Again, that the situation
in the Gaza Strip is beyond despair. This is the
reality and I keep them saying it Israel disputes the
figures that are provided by the United Nations. Well, why
doesn't Israel allow independent.
Speaker 9 (47:02):
Monitors to enter the Gazza strips?
Speaker 13 (47:04):
Why Israel doesn't allow journalists to enter because of strips?
Speaker 9 (47:07):
This is the only conflict, if you want to pull
it like.
Speaker 13 (47:10):
That, that has no foreign correspondence, And it's astonishing.
Speaker 9 (47:15):
The reality is dramatic.
Speaker 13 (47:17):
What I hear not only from the United Nations to
human dire operators on the ground, but also from many survivors.
It's catastrophic and I've seen it with my own eyes.
VI's in hospitals in the region where there are especially
those who have been evacuated from Gaza in the last
two weeks and months.
Speaker 9 (47:34):
They are severely malnourished, especially the children.
Speaker 13 (47:36):
So there is no question that famine has hit parts
of Gaza heavily.
Speaker 9 (47:42):
And the north, whatever is above.
Speaker 13 (47:46):
The White Gaza has been almost off limits to the
entry obeyed. Whatever that has entered from the south has
been in heavily contingent and so very very limited. But
also it's impossible to deliver aid. This is something that
ANA has announced over and over. I mentioned Ana because
this is the agency which has the largest capacity to
(48:08):
deliver aid in the in the Gaza Strip, and that's
been humpered by the bombing, the continuous bombing which has
never stopped, the huge destruction to infrastructure, including roads, and
the danger that is sense. So especially now with the
control that in Israel maintains over the Rapha crossing.
Speaker 9 (48:28):
The United Nations are already saying.
Speaker 13 (48:30):
That there is absolutely not enough aid that enters the
You know, there have been at tents to deliver food
from from the sea and from air. But I find
it even a bit cynical, if you allow me to
say so, because it does not say that's not been
delivered according to humanitarian standards, to the no armed principle,
(48:51):
and so it has been off as are the d
and even even dangerous, even lethal in a number of
cases because the air drop US peoples Francesca.
Speaker 1 (49:03):
As you know, the International Court of Justice is currently
considering a courtesy of a case brought by South Africa,
whether Israel is committing genocide violating those conventions in the
Gaza Strip. They issued a preliminary finding that was widely
reported and understood to be that they found it the
case to be at least applausible. However, Joan Donahue, who
(49:25):
just retired as president of the ICJ, recently spoke with
the BBC and indicated this was not the correct way
to think about this initial finding. Let's take a listen
to what she had to say, and then I want
to get your reaction and break down on the other side.
Speaker 14 (49:40):
I'm glad I have a chance to address that because
the court test for deciding whether to impose measures uses
the idea of plausibility. But the test is the plausibility
of the rights that are asserted by the applicant, in
this case South Africa. So the court decided that the
Palestinians had a place pausible right to be protected from
(50:02):
genocide and that South Africa had the right to present
that claim in the court. It then looked at the
facts as well, but it did not decide and this
is something where I'm correcting what's often said in the media.
It didn't decide that the claim of genocide was plausible.
It did emphasize in the order that there was a
(50:25):
risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian right to be
protected from genocide. But the shorthand that often appears, which
is that there's a plausible case of genocide, isn't what
the court decided.
Speaker 1 (50:37):
Francesca, if you could help us understand what the Court
did and did not decide in terms of this ICJ
potential genocide case.
Speaker 13 (50:47):
Yes, I think the first all we need to understand
that if there was no case to be heard over
alleged to genocide and Gaza, the case would have been
stopped in its trucks, just as Israel requested.
Speaker 9 (50:57):
Instead, the ICJ issued a preliminary of.
Speaker 13 (51:00):
Preliminary measures on the twenty sixth of January and another
on the twenty eighth of March, and does not bring
either the South Africa versus Israel, not the Nicaraguabus Germany.
Speaker 9 (51:10):
Cases that are still pending now.
Speaker 13 (51:13):
The twenty sixth of January orders said there is a
risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian right to be
protected from genocide. There risk can only exist if someone
exclusively threatening that right.
Speaker 9 (51:29):
So it seems to me that there.
Speaker 13 (51:30):
Is a confusion over semantics. So the possible right at
risk is the right and not to be genocided.
Speaker 2 (51:39):
So a bigger and more philosophical question. In your report,
you wrote about the anatomy of a genocide. Could you
define for us what genocide means I guess under international
law and by the United Nations, and then give us
some historical examples other than the Holocaust of what we
should look to so that people can wrap their heads around.
Speaker 13 (52:02):
I'm glad you asked me this question, Slagara, because especially
in the Western world, I find that there is a
huge confusion over what genocide means, and there is of
court and it should be so. I mean, the Holocaust
should remain great in our memory, especially I speak as
a European, and the Holocaust should never be forgotten, and
(52:22):
what led.
Speaker 9 (52:23):
To the Holocausts should not be forgotten.
Speaker 13 (52:25):
At the same time, what constitute genocides is not established
by necessarily by by presidents or personal opinion or personal experiences,
painful as they are. What constitutes GENOCIDEY is established by
Article two of the nineteen forty eight Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and genocide
(52:47):
is defined as a set of acts committed with intent
to destroy.
Speaker 9 (52:54):
National, racial, ethnic, or.
Speaker 13 (52:56):
Religious group in a whole or in power art as such,
and it includes a series of acts like killing members
of the group, infliction of severe bodily or mental harm
to members of the group, or the creation of conditions
of life that would lead to the destruction of the group.
Speaker 9 (53:13):
To mention the three cases that I found relevant.
Speaker 13 (53:17):
In the case of side, of course, the treasury is
very high because one is to prove not only the
intent to commit to those crimes, but also the intent
to come to destroy the people in all or in part,
the protected group in all or in part through these acts,
So the specific intent to commit genocide.
Speaker 9 (53:39):
The other example of history, we say history is replenished
of store.
Speaker 13 (53:46):
Incidents and the cases of genocide. The very history of
colonialism is replenished of genocide or ideology and practices. And
this is something that we understand very well if we
read the important literature that hasn't been left, including by
(54:07):
Raphi Lenkin, the scholar who coined who gave the world
genocide Francisca.
Speaker 1 (54:14):
Why would a finding of genocide matter from the ICJ, Because,
as has been reported and has always discussed when this
case is discussed, the ICJ doesn't really have enforcement powers,
So what does it even matter what they do? What
does it even matter if this term actually comes to
be applied to Israel's actions with regard to the Pacadian people,
(54:36):
specifically in the Gaza strip. What's your response to that
on the potential impact of this case.
Speaker 13 (54:43):
Crystal, Your question is very important because while the ICJ
determination in conclusions is critical to establish state responsibility over
the crime of genocide, the Genocide Convention refers to the
need to end the obligation to prevent genocide. I would
(55:05):
like to say that the ICJ conclusions and measures, including
provisional measures, are binding. So while the direct enforcement relies
upon states, it's very important that the compass is established
to buy the ICJ. Similarly important is the finding the
investigation and the conclusions of national courts and the ICIC
(55:29):
who then have the responsibility to identify individual criminal liability.
Speaker 9 (55:35):
But again, the obligation to.
Speaker 13 (55:37):
Prevent genocide is triggered by the risk that genocide is
being committed, and for me, that moment was reached on
the twenty six of January, when the Court is concluded
that there is a plausibility of risk for the rights
protected under the Genocide Convention for the.
Speaker 9 (55:55):
Palestinians in Gaza. Why is it important.
Speaker 13 (55:58):
It's important because in these instruments are and these mechanisms
are the one leading to justice. But for me, the
very existence of a convention which has in itself the
obligation which is ERGA governments, applies to all member states,
including those who are not party to the Genocide Convention,
to prevent genocide. Giving the gravity of this crime is necessary.
(56:23):
I mean, we cannot wait for the for the determination
of the Court to prevent genocide, otherwise the genocide mind
be committed.
Speaker 2 (56:33):
My question is, so the defense here in the United
States by the Israelis is that mass civilian death is
frankly just. I guess part and parcel as they would
put it, of an urban military campaign. The Israeli defenders
have been pointing to US and Iraqi military actions.
Speaker 3 (56:50):
In the city of Mosul.
Speaker 2 (56:51):
There have been previous comparisons to the number of civilian
casualties who are incurred in the Second World War. How
do you think about the difference between those two or
three examples. What level of civilian casualty is accepted? How
do you parse intent? Whenever you are writing your report
(57:12):
and you're thinking, as you said, through the genocide conventions.
Speaker 13 (57:16):
I think that is the arguments that have been offered
and that you voted for me are a way to
divert the attention from what is happening on the ground
and the need to have scrutiny.
Speaker 9 (57:28):
Over Israel's practices.
Speaker 13 (57:30):
This is not a case like any other, because Israel
is the occupying power in the Gaza Strip and so
should take the utmost precautions in ensuring that the occupied
population is protected and is spared from the previous impact
of any conflict. Now, and this is not the first
conflict that has occurred in Gaza. This is the sixth,
(57:51):
of course, the most the most valid. Again, I go
back to the point that I said in the beginning
the action that Israelist can have been indiscriminated and have
targeted civilians, there is.
Speaker 9 (58:01):
No question about that.
Speaker 13 (58:02):
But this is something that I reflect from the very
first days of the revengeful military operation against the Gaza Strip,
because the very idea of targeting Hamas, going after Hamas
considering anyone as a terrorist was very dangerous, was very blurred.
Where is the distinction between the civilians and the combatants.
(58:23):
We know that who can be targeted under international uanitary
law are active combatants.
Speaker 9 (58:29):
So even a soldier, including Israeli soldiers.
Speaker 13 (58:31):
Cannot be targeted unless they are inactive combat and if
they have surrendered, they need to be respected. They can
be taken prisoners, but they cannot be executed.
Speaker 9 (58:41):
So there is a.
Speaker 13 (58:42):
Respect for the right to life in international humanitary laws
in situational conflict, which is minimum, it's not absolute. And
at the same time, this is the minimum threshold not
to fall into complete brutality, cruelty and lack of humanity.
So what has happened in Gaza is again Israel has
justified inductions like okay, we have killed these many people
(59:05):
because there were human shields. Where where is the evidence
we know from the investigations that israelis in themselves. Israeli
jornan Is carried out that artificial intelligence has been deployed
up to the point that in order to target one
hamas fighter or combatant and a risk up to one
(59:26):
hundred people has been calculated. So there are being instances
and documented distances like in Jovali, a camp where one
of one hundred people were killed and one hundred people
were injured just because there was one military.
Speaker 9 (59:39):
Combatant allegedly there. We don't know if in active combat
or not was was present.
Speaker 13 (59:45):
Again, in the these are not precautions and it is
not respectable princible distinction. So even if even if there
was a legitimate reason to start the war against the
Kaza strip, the weight it has been sorry, the way
it has been conducted is absolutely against any basic principle
(01:00:06):
of international law.
Speaker 1 (01:00:08):
We also have a lot of statements from senior Israeli officials,
some of which you document in your report, some of
which are documented in the South African case at the ICJ,
that seem to indicate genocidal intent, talking about no one
involves civilians, describing all everyone in Gaza as animals reference
to Biblical anlek et cetera. How important are those statements
(01:00:33):
from Israeli officials. Now what they would say is, oh,
this is just heat of the moment, this is populous rhetoric.
It's not actually being translated into policy. So how significant
and consequential do you find those statements to be?
Speaker 12 (01:00:47):
No?
Speaker 13 (01:00:48):
Indeed, if we look at the international Jewish prudence, for example,
stemming from the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia or Ruanda,
we can definitely see that statements of victuals per see
do not constitute to the hardcore evidence to prove that
there is general side. In fact, what I claim is
that on the one hand, there has been a look
(01:01:10):
at the legal legal documents that have animated this or
have led to this military campaign, but also what has
happened on the ground, because those words that you have,
those horrible words that you have mentioned in the beginning,
have resonated, have reverberated, have been internalized and acted upon
by soldiers on the ground.
Speaker 9 (01:01:31):
I mean, it's been really, really.
Speaker 13 (01:01:33):
Soul consuming heartbreaking to see the self incriminatory videos that
Israeli soldiers themselves have posted on social media and see
significant number of whom I verified, including the technical experts,
where they claim to have his entire neighborhoods as a
revenge against the ded animals who carried out the seventh
(01:01:57):
of October attack, and they have often and quoted this
language the camelekt. They have talked of the full destruction
of Gaza, and soldiers have repeated we came here to destroy,
to occupy, and to.
Speaker 9 (01:02:13):
And to settle.
Speaker 13 (01:02:14):
And this is something that again as they could, so
powerful across the infantry that has been deployed on the
ground that it is really scary m hm.
Speaker 3 (01:02:24):
One of the reasons that I.
Speaker 13 (01:02:26):
Think, let me say, let me just I think it's
important to implement what I said in the beginning. So
in order to determine whether there is genocide, we need
to find the intent.
Speaker 9 (01:02:37):
And intent cannot be determined only.
Speaker 13 (01:02:40):
On the words and the ordal statements of policy makers,
but can be can be inferred. And again, when there
is such a nature, scale and patterns of conducts that
speak to the same intent, and there is a reality
and the capacity to carry out genocide, well this is
where the intent to become puspicious and facious.
Speaker 2 (01:03:03):
One of the reasons that we reached out to you
originally was a response from the US State Department where
they appeared to imply that you were anti Semitic. So
we have some of the comments here from the State
Department spoke for sin Matt Miller, and we'll get your reaction.
Speaker 3 (01:03:17):
Let's take a listen.
Speaker 11 (01:03:18):
We have long, for long standing, for a long standing
period of time, opposed the mandate of this special Rapporteur,
which we believe is not productive. And when it comes
to the individual who holds that position, I can't help
but note history of anti Submitic comments that she has
made that have.
Speaker 8 (01:03:38):
Been and made anti Semitic comments she has.
Speaker 11 (01:03:41):
And comments she made in December that appeared to adju
justify the attacks of October seventh, So I think it's
important to take that into account. But with respect to
the report itself, we have made clear that we believe
that allegations of genocide are unfounded.
Speaker 3 (01:03:58):
So we wanted to give you a chance to respond
to that.
Speaker 13 (01:04:01):
Okay, First of all, the US has never considered this
as always contested, like Israel, the value of this mandate,
and this is something that precedes me and as little
to do with my persona, while the comments of the
spoken person had to do very much with my persona.
And I was appolled when I heard that a senior
(01:04:24):
US suficial could spread these lies, because there are lies.
Speaker 9 (01:04:29):
First of all, I've never ever justified. It's appalling.
Speaker 13 (01:04:33):
I've never justified the seventh of October attacks.
Speaker 9 (01:04:35):
I've said that.
Speaker 13 (01:04:36):
These acts were brutal, were criminal, and I have said
that there should be an a There is an absolute
need to have investigation and prosecution of those crimes. I've
said also, we need to understand where this hatred comes from.
What I have rejected is the qualification of those acts
as motivated by antisemitism, because, first of all, there.
Speaker 9 (01:04:56):
Is no evidence of it.
Speaker 13 (01:04:57):
The second second thing is that there are is really
scholars themselves who say that it's very responsible to put
the burden of what has happened on alleged antisemitism of
Palestinians because the responsal realizis Israel, and they put textualizes
the horror that as the second place in occupied Palestinian terrory,
(01:05:19):
territory for fifty six years, which might might have fed
the hatred.
Speaker 9 (01:05:24):
So again I pushed back on this allegation. The allegation
of antisemitism is.
Speaker 13 (01:05:32):
Repulsive, as disgusting for me is antisemitis. As a human
rights lawyer, I'm engaged against antisemitism, against anti ISLAMO sorry,
against Islamophobia, Arabophobia, any form of discriminations, including anti Palestinian racism.
And what I really very much reject is that the
allegation of antisemitism is used more and more to distract
(01:05:56):
from Israel's responsibility, which is something that also not only
betrays what antisemitism is, but creates new dangers for the
Jewish people wherever they are. We need to distinguish what
is Judaism and what is Israel's conducts. And I've always said,
and I'm on record, I've always said any Jewish person
is allowed to have all the feelings and love for
(01:06:20):
Israel they want. What I stand against is the unconsctionable
stance of governments in sheltering Israel accountability and which protracts
its impunity.
Speaker 1 (01:06:35):
Well, Frantasca, I guess you can take comfort in the
fact that you're far from alone and being labeled as
anti Semitic for her views with regard to what Israel's
during the Gaza strip. I'm sure you're familiar with the
discourse here, including from the President of the United States,
about the campus protesters that have You know, these protests
have really taken off across the country, students who are
calling for a ceasefire, calling for the US and their
(01:06:57):
support for what they see, as you do, as a genocide.
I wanted to get your reaction to Speaker of the
House Mike Johnson made some very noteworthy comments on Holocaust
Remembrance Day about these protests and the character of these protests.
Speaker 15 (01:07:12):
Let's take a listen to that the very campuses which
were once the envy of the International Academy have succumbed
to an anti Semitic virus. Students who were known for
producing academic papers are now known for stabbing their Jewish
peers in the eyes with Palestinian flags and with our
survivors before us. If you close your eyes and the
(01:07:36):
quietness of your own heart, you can almost hear the
glass of Jewish storefronts shattered by stormtroopers. You could see
fathers being executed at point blank in the ghettos. You
can feel a brother's hand slipping out of his sisters
as men in uniforms separate them into lines and they
can only mouth to one another. Everything will be okay,
(01:07:59):
hoping that would be.
Speaker 4 (01:08:01):
So, Francesca. At first, just to correct the record, there.
Speaker 1 (01:08:03):
Are no documented incidents of anyone being stabbed with the
eye by a flag or any other thing. Just wanted
to put that out there. But here you see the
speaker of the house labeling American students, equating them to Nazis,
very much echoing the rhetoric of Israeli President Benjamin Niaho.
This has been used to justify quite an extensive crackdown
(01:08:26):
and criminalization of these protests. I wonder what your reaction
as an international human rights lawyer is both to this
language but also to the response to these campus protests.
Speaker 10 (01:08:37):
Well, let me.
Speaker 9 (01:08:38):
React on the remarks.
Speaker 13 (01:08:39):
First, I find Speaker Johnson's remarks both in felicitous and
in natury the comparative evolutions of college campus protests against
c CRU's conducting Gaza because the people we are talking
about to antisemitism, to the heinous of revolting antisemitism that
led to the Hall of Us is not only historically inappropriate,
(01:09:02):
but also functions to divert the attention from the subsubti
issues at hand, namely the growing body of evidence regarding
the atrospity grinds committed in Gaza that clearly this young
generation globally across the world cannot stomach anymore.
Speaker 9 (01:09:17):
I also found that this is.
Speaker 13 (01:09:18):
A rhetorical tactic exploiting the memory of the Holocos, instrumentalizing
one of the history greatest atrocities for contemporary purposes is
unacceptable because it undermines the gravity and uniqueness of the
Holocaust while simultanently obscuring the pressing concerns in the occupied
palacy and territory. And I believe that as we aim
(01:09:40):
to foster a constructive and respective, respectful discourse, it is
crucial that historical comparisons are made with careful considerations of
their accuracy and their implications, and going to the protests
in US campuses, I can tell as a European this
is spreading across the world anyone including I mean, I
(01:10:00):
live in an Arab country, and everyone is looking at
these young people as the most courageous and I do
share the team, so I keep.
Speaker 9 (01:10:10):
On saying I hope that they stay peaceful and.
Speaker 13 (01:10:13):
Respectful and ixtalate any element that my represent a threat
to anyone in the university. But I also want to
say that there are many Jewish students among them. And again,
and this is what gives me hope that the new
generation doesn't buy anymore what has been.
Speaker 9 (01:10:32):
The narratives are sold by leadership and nowadays.
Speaker 1 (01:10:40):
Francesca Albany, is you on special rappator. Thank you so
much for taking some time with us this morning. We're
extremely grateful and now you're very busy.
Speaker 2 (01:10:46):
Thanks for your time. Thank you, Thank you guys so
much for watching. We really appreciate it for supporting us.
Make sure you go and sign up breakingpoints dot com.
You can get early access to the Counterpoints debates and
support some of the work there and help US interview
you an officials. That's the first one for me, so
thank you all very much. Otherwise, we'll see you all
next week.
Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here
and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent.
Speaker 3 (00:15):
Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
If you like what we're all about, it just means
the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that,
let's get to the show. Good morning everybody, Happy Thursday.
We have an amazing show for everybody today.
Speaker 4 (00:28):
What do we have, Crystal, indeed we do.
Speaker 1 (00:30):
We have some big breaking news to talk to you
about this morning. President Biden on CNN last night saying
he would hold some arm shipments to Israel if they
launch a quote major invasion in Darrafa. What exactly does
that mean? What are the implications, what are the reactions?
A lot to dig into there. We also have some
updates for you on the former president Donald Trump catching
(00:50):
additional legal breaks.
Speaker 4 (00:52):
So we'll take a look at that.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
Meanwhile, RFK Junior it was revealed suffered a I guess
you would say, rather unique medical conditionvolving his brain.
Speaker 3 (01:00):
And literal reworms. Yeah, not to joke.
Speaker 4 (01:04):
Every joke has already been made. It's literally true. Write
that down Rio his response. All of that good stuff.
Speaker 1 (01:11):
Also really fascinating report and some new numbers about how
there's been a nature population shift in the last several
years out of cities and into rural America. You know,
the question was after the pandemic, would that shift back,
because we saw that during.
Speaker 4 (01:24):
The pandemic with the remote work boom.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
It doesn't look like it. It looks like this trend
is kind of here to stay. So obviously that has
huge implications, and we are really excited to be joined
today by the UN Special Rappertur for Human Rights in
the Occupied Territories. Francesca Albanize is going to join us
for an extended interview. Obviously incredibly relevant to talk to
her today as a potential invasion into Rafa Loom.
Speaker 4 (01:45):
She's been taking a look.
Speaker 1 (01:46):
Not only she published a report saying that there were
reasonable grounds to believe Israel is committing genocide in the
Gaza strip, but she's also been taking a close look
at the humanitarian situation and the status of AID, what's
going in, what's not going in. So really excited to
get to talk to her and hear her perspective on
all of these things today.
Speaker 3 (02:03):
Yeah, it's gonna be interesting.
Speaker 2 (02:04):
To my knowledge, hasn't done a lot of interviews, especially
with a lot of media outlets, and we've been working
on this for quite some time.
Speaker 3 (02:09):
So that's gonna be fun.
Speaker 2 (02:10):
Before we get to that, though, we have interesting teas
that we can give all of you counterpoints.
Speaker 3 (02:15):
Hosted another one of their debates.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
It will be dropping for premium subscribers tonight and it
will be publicly available on Friday. But the important thing
here is about what it was revealed. So it was
Ilia Shapiro versus Glenn Greenwald on the topic of free speech.
Those of you who may not know, Ilia Shapiro is
a well known figure here in Washington, works at the
Manhattan Institute, previously at the Cato Institute, a libertarian constitutional lawyer,
(02:41):
but recently has taken very much of a turn to
try and I'll just say this, he's taken a turn
to go against some principles that I think previously would
have rubbed up against free speech.
Speaker 3 (02:51):
I don't put that in the kindest way possible.
Speaker 2 (02:53):
Glenn Greenwald debated him also on the subject, specifically, not
only around free speech, but whether the government and should
be cracking down on organizations that are calling for ceasefires
back in campus protests and all that.
Speaker 3 (03:05):
So we have a little teas that we can show
all of you. Let's take a lesson.
Speaker 5 (03:08):
Glenn asked about Jewish Voices for Peace. That's a fact question,
as lawyers would call it. This is why Attorney General
of Virginia, Jason Miaris, among others, are investigating the various
contacts between these organizations.
Speaker 6 (03:21):
And that doesn't bother you that Jewish Voice for Our
Peace are being criminally investigated. This is righting attorney generals
who love Israel. That doesn't bother you.
Speaker 5 (03:32):
Jewish Voices seems to me like the Holy Roman Empire,
and that it's neither holy, nor Roman nor an empire.
JVP is neither Jewish nor voices nor for.
Speaker 3 (03:40):
People cares what you think of their opinions.
Speaker 6 (03:42):
They have every right to engage in the American student.
Speaker 5 (03:47):
I'm not saying they should be prosecuted for their speech.
I'm saying if investigations reveal that they're part of a
terrorist financing network and organizational instructure, then they should be
thrown off campus as a corporate body. This is not
about the rights of students or what they're saying whether
they should be prosecuted for that, and stop conflating those
kinds of issues.
Speaker 6 (04:06):
No, but first of all, they have been thrown off
many campuses, and the argument is the same theory that
rondasantis use. If you accuse student student groups that are
in favor of the propolicanting cause of being guilty for
material support of terrorism, which is what you have to
claim in order to justify banning them from campus. Otherwise
(04:26):
it's such an obvious violation of the First Amendment free
speech if you don't have another pretext. And that's why
fire dot org took such great offense to what DeSantis
did in other colleges as well. If you if you
claim they're guilty of material support for terrorism as it
grounds for banning them from campus, obviously you're accusing them
of felonies. That's what material support. You're not allowed to
(04:47):
give material support.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
Anyways, let's just say there's a lot more that came
from this over an hour, so if you want to
watch it and support the work the Counterpoints is doing
in our expansion breakingpoints dot com. Thank you everybody who
has been I think they've just been putting out excellent content.
Speaker 3 (05:02):
They have the Don Lemon thing, I.
Speaker 2 (05:04):
Mean, the Destiny debate was good, this in particular, So
this is just more of what you can expect.
Speaker 3 (05:08):
And people are starting to take notice, right.
Speaker 2 (05:10):
They understand this is a place where we can convene
things and they're really leaning into that. So congratulations to them,
and thank you to everybody for supporting them.
Speaker 1 (05:17):
Yeah, thank you guys for making this happen. It's also
cool now we're Monday through Friday. Yeah, I haven't watched
this one yet. I'm very much looking forward to it.
I'm less familiar with Ilia obviously. Glenn we know very well,
and he's never afraid of a fight.
Speaker 2 (05:29):
No, he's and you know, CoP's doing it two for
showing up. A lot of people won't do it, so
I'll at least he at least showed up. It went
up against Glenn, who you know, who's going to give
it to.
Speaker 1 (05:37):
Me exactly whatever, Like whether you agree or disagree with Glenn,
I think everyone respects his debating abilities, so to show
up and rop your position, listen. Respect for being willing
to do that. And I'm personally looking forward to having
a chance to take a look. So, like Soccer said,
if you guys want to get that early, it's going
to drop tonight for premium subscribers. It'll be available for
everyone tomorrow. With that, let's go ahead and get to
(06:00):
the news of the day. So the big breaking news
this morning, and this is quite significant.
Speaker 4 (06:05):
President Biden gave.
Speaker 1 (06:06):
An exclusive interview to CNN's Aaron Burnett last night made
some big news. This comes in the wake of the
revelation that the US had paused a shipment of two
thousand pound bombs that was slated to go to Israel.
Speaker 4 (06:21):
That news leaked out.
Speaker 1 (06:22):
President Biden in this interview, revealing that he is saying
if they launch a major invasion into Rafa, he will
block additional weapons shipments.
Speaker 4 (06:32):
Let's take a listen to exactly what he had to say.
Speaker 7 (06:34):
I want to ask you about something happening as we
sit here and speak, and that of course, Israel is
striking Rafa. I know that you have paused, mister President,
shipments of two thousand pound US bombs to Israel due
to concern that they could be used in any offensive
on Rafa. Have those bombs, those powerful two thousand pound
(06:55):
bombs been used to kill civilians in Gaza.
Speaker 8 (07:00):
Have been killed in Gaza as a consequence of those
bombs and other ways in which they go after population centers.
And I made it clear that if they go into Rafa,
they haven't gone on Raffa yet, they go into Rafa,
I'm not supplying the weapons that have been used historically
to deal with Rafa, to deal with the cities, to
(07:20):
deal with that problem. We're going to continue to make
sure because you're less secure in terms of Iron Dome
and their ability to respond to attacks that came out
of you the UH Middle least recently. But it's it's
just wrong. We're not going to We're not going to
supply the weapons and the artillery shells used that have been.
Speaker 9 (07:41):
Used artillery shells as well, Yeah, artillery shells.
Speaker 7 (07:45):
So just to understand what they're doing right now in Rafa,
is that not going into Rafa as you don't.
Speaker 8 (07:53):
They haven't gone in the population centers. What they did,
it's right on the border and it's causing problems with
right now. In terms of with Egypt, which I've worked
very hard to make sure we have a relationship and help.
But I've made it clear to BB in the work Cabinet,
They're not going to get our support if in fact
they're going these population centers.
Speaker 1 (08:14):
So he says here they haven't gone into Rafa, which
is a little confusing because they have. But now we're
kind of adjusting where the redline was. Previous it was
no invasion of Rafa. Then it was no invasion that
didn't account for humanitarianism. Now it's no incursion into major
population centers. So a lot of questions about exactly what
(08:35):
this means Sager, but you know, obviously very noteworthy. We'll
show you in a minute after I get Sager's reactions
some of the already you know, freak out from the right,
certainly total freak out from the Israeli side. Also very
noteworthy that he says these two thousand pound bombs have
been used to kill civilians, which raises the question also
(08:56):
of okay, so if you knew that, why did we
move Haaven and Earth to pass billions of dollars just
a couple of weeks ago more in aid to ship
more of these weapons that you are acknowledging have been
used to massacre civilians?
Speaker 4 (09:10):
So what do you make of these comments?
Speaker 3 (09:12):
It's just sheer incoherence because it is.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
The State Department just yesterday put on permanent pause any
report that would prove exactly what the President of the
United States just said. There's no substantive difference between Israeli
action in Rafa than there would be in communist or
in Gaza City. So what you know, change has happened here.
If anything, you've empowered the Israeli right, the Israeli military actions,
(09:34):
We've reaped the worst rewards, not only of civilian casualties,
but of international standing to Israel itself, to the United
States and its international community, obviously domestic turmoil here at home,
and now all of a sudden we seem to be
changing things up as if they've been going. It just
it makes very little sense and it actually sticks with
Biden to me, which is its incoherent. It has no
(09:56):
basis in actual like and stratage in terms of where
things are going. There's a question too as to whether
this is just being fed up over a hostage deal,
whether this is posturing in terms of negotiation out look,
I mean, I want to be clear and I want
to say this. I do support withholding or conditioning aid
based upon what the US does.
Speaker 3 (10:17):
That seems like a basic thing.
Speaker 2 (10:18):
But as we'll show you with some of our Republican
neocons here in Washington, that is anathema. Whenever you're an ally,
apparently you're owed anything that you could ever want from
the US Treasury. Really only oh well, we'll get to that. Well,
you know, no, that's a Ukraine Erasier crystal, of course,
and that's important, you know, to try and to underscore this.
(10:39):
So I would put this in the same way that
Biden was on Afghanistan, where you know, he eventually decides
to pull out. He does frankly and like one of
the worst most domestically politically disastrous ways possible. Prior to
that extends US troop levels in Afghanistan, but then it
backs Ukraine to the hill. He just has no coherence
or strategy in what he's being built upon. So I
(11:01):
will at least endorse the idea of conditioning AID. Well,
I support that, not just Asrael, by the way, all
nations that the United States were to give to. So
I don't know of a mixed bag. I wonder what
you think about it.
Speaker 4 (11:12):
Yeah, I mean there's a lot to say about this.
Speaker 1 (11:14):
First of all, we don't even really know what I
mean right, because he's out here saying like, well, they
haven't gone into run.
Speaker 4 (11:19):
Well they have gone into profas.
Speaker 1 (11:20):
So is this red line any more meaningful than previous ones.
Speaker 4 (11:24):
We don't know. We don't know.
Speaker 1 (11:26):
Apparently, you know, the behind the receipt scenes reporting I
was reading Peter Baker this morning the New York Times,
is that the US wanted to quietly pause these shipments
as a use of private leverage against Israel. The Israelis
leaked the news in advance of Holocaust Remembrance Day. Apparently,
(11:47):
this interview with Biden was it was intentional that this
came after he gives the big Holocaust remembrance speech, once
again painting all the college protesters, who he apparently agrees
with in some respects as anti Semites. And so he
does that, then he comes out and makes this announcement,
and I think it just it's to be determined if
(12:07):
it means anything.
Speaker 4 (12:08):
At all, I guess is what I would say.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
And there's also a lot of reporting, you know, people
behind the scenes saying, listen, this doesn't mean that Israel's
not going to get every penny of the whatever fourteen
billion dollars that was just passed for it. He makes
sure to say offensive weapons. So there's a limit to
you know, in terms of how far he's willing to
go in terms of conditioning AID, if that AID even
is conditioned. So what is a major invasion? What are
(12:31):
we counting as a population center? We don't have a
lot of clarity with regards to any of that, so
TBD whether this means anything at all, I think another
you know, you just have to ask, like if you
know that our two thousand pound bombs are being used
to mass or civilians, which anyone who's looking at this
conflict knows and has known for literally months. I mean,
(12:53):
when was it that it got dropped on that refugee camp,
killing hundreds of people to possibly maybe you get one
Hamas fighters.
Speaker 3 (13:02):
I'm that in November that I want to say that.
Speaker 1 (13:04):
So we've known this for a long time. So the
most obvious question is what the hell took so long?
Most of the Gaza Strip is completely destroyed. Gaza City
con unis just rubble.
Speaker 4 (13:17):
There's more rubble.
Speaker 1 (13:18):
Gaza is tiny, right, It's like the size of Manhattan basically,
and there is more rubble in the Gaza Strip than
there is in all of Ukraine. Okay, in a much
shorter period time and a much, much, much much smaller
land mass forty thousand Palestinians. We really don't know the toll,
to be honest with you, dead all six hundred thousand
(13:39):
kids in Rafa are injured, sick, malnourished. You've got babies
starving to death, and so you just look at it.
You're like, I'm with you, said, of course, yes, this
is the correct position.
Speaker 4 (13:50):
What the hell took you so long?
Speaker 1 (13:54):
I think one thing we have to say is the
protests seem to be putting pressure on them, like they
seem to be feeling certainly the political heat from the
protest movement across the country, from the fact that, you know,
public opinion and especially Democratic opinion, is very much against
Joe Biden on this. There's a new poll yesterday from ZTEO.
(14:15):
Fifty seven percent of Democrats say yes, it's a genocide,
only some twenty percent say it's not. Firmatively say it's not.
So he's dramatically at odds with the Democratic Party. He
knows this is a political problem for him. I think
that's why this is happening right now. He is very
reluctant to make any change in the unconditional support of
Israel policy. And so I think you have to say
(14:36):
that that political pressure is part of why you're getting
at least this rhetorical shift, and what appears to have
been more than a rhetorical shift at least in terms
of pausing one shipment for now.
Speaker 3 (14:48):
I think it's possible it could be.
Speaker 2 (14:49):
I'm actually not sure how much it has to do
with the domestic political pressure. I'm starting to think a
lot of it could also be in terms of international pressure,
because what we should remember is that Arafa c invasion
cross and all that is a genuine demarcation point, both
for Turkey and for Egypt, and so there is and
has been a lot of leaking behind the scenes. I
don't I think you might have seen this as well.
(15:09):
Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Saudi Arabia used
the term genocide for the very first time actually after
the Rafa invasion.
Speaker 3 (15:17):
So there was the threatening of total.
Speaker 2 (15:18):
International isolation of the US from Saudi Arabia, from Egypt
and from others. And the Egyptians in particular have been
putting huge and tremendous pressure behind the scenes because it
is a breach of the nineteen seventy two agreements. I'm
not saying that domestic political pressure didn't have anything. It's
a confluence events like anything else. I do think though,
we shouldn't, you know, we should remember that the US
(15:39):
position in the Middle East has been so degraded now
at this point that this really could have been a
genuine break, you know, to actually see a full on
invasion of Rafa. For we already saw with the Saudis,
which is a key strategic ally for the US, and
obviously they've got their finger on the Opec oil and
Biden doesn't want to screw with that. The Egyptians and
the NATO, I mean, one of the things that we
(16:00):
can't forget either is Turkey after the invasion of Rafa
was announced, pulled all trade with Israel. It was a major,
major point in terms of international politics. So I think
that that was a significant driver of the fact as well.
Speaker 1 (16:13):
Maybe, but in my experience, the US response doesn't really
care that much about international opinion or like, you know,
what's out of like what the Egyptians saying, we fund
them significantly to we give them a huge amount of aid,
and certainly politicians do have a track record of caring
about their own re election prospects. So don't know, like
(16:33):
you said, could have been a confluence of factors. But
I think the fact that the protests have become so heated,
such a divisive issue within the Democratic Party, and that
Democratic public sentiment has gone so aggressively against Joe Biden,
public sentiment in general has gone so aggressively against Joe Biden,
I would say, has to be considered as a factor here,
you know, in terms of the response.
Speaker 4 (16:53):
Ryan made this point on Twitter yesterday, which is so true.
Speaker 1 (16:56):
Like Joe Biden has been the most pro Israel president
I think in American history. I think it's hard to
argue otherwise. At every turn he has given them everything
they wanted, from diplomatic cover obviously, the weapons and the aid.
He's gone out and gone with bb Netanya who's lines
neraring college kids as Nazis. Like every step of the way,
(17:18):
it has been the bear huck. And yet the minute
that he even threatens to pause weapons shipments, even you know,
to condition aid at all, everyone who's pro is Or,
including John Fetterman, all of the Mike Johnson, Mitch McConnell,
et cetera.
Speaker 4 (17:36):
They turn like that.
Speaker 1 (17:37):
I mean, he doesn't get any credit from them about
the fact that he did unconditionally support them. It was
the most pro Israel president that we've literally ever had
in history. The Minity changes man that the knives are
out for him. Let's put this up on the screen.
You've got Bill Ackman, billionaire's been just you know, causing
all kinds of trouble and really involved in the whole
(17:57):
campus situation, funded those violent counter protesters in UCLA.
Speaker 4 (18:01):
Says crazy. This is one of.
Speaker 1 (18:03):
The worst acts against an ally of a sitting president ever.
Hopefully this means he won't be sitting for much longer.
You've gotten Mitt Romney says, we stand by allies, we
don't second guess them. Biden's dithering on Israel weapons is
bad policy and a terrible message to Israel, our allies,
and the world. So obviously that the you know, vehemently
(18:23):
pro Israel crowd immediately turns on him, and as Ryan
pointed out on Twitter, like the left progressives are never
going to forgive him at this point, Like there are
so many dead and so much destruction, it really doesn't
matter what he does. You can't you can't undo the
death and the damage and the trauma that has already
been caused. So politically, you know, he's made his own bed.
(18:45):
And the other thing that I point out too is,
you know, day before he was basically painting Israel criticism
as anti Semitic. So if that's your framework, and then
the very next day you are yourself sizing Israel and
you know, voicing some of the concerns that this protest
movement is all about. Yeah, again, you've made your own bed.
(19:08):
You've set the political framework that being critical of Israel
in any way is effectively equivalent to being a Nazi.
And then you you know, guess what happens when you
then have to go and criticize Israel. The pro Israel
crowd paints you exactly the way that they do these
you know, student protesters who are on college campuses.
Speaker 2 (19:26):
Yeah, let me reiterate what Mitt Romney said. We stand
by allies, we don't second guess them. Biden's dithering is
bad policy and a terrible message is crazy. Get yeah,
exactly how many Israeli troops served in Afghanistan?
Speaker 3 (19:40):
Anyone want to know? Zero?
Speaker 2 (19:41):
How many Israelly troops served in Iraq? Even though they're
the ones who asked us to go in there. Zero
how many is how much Israeli dollars supported the US
Global War on Terror in both of those zero I
can go on forever. I mean, where there israelly troops
on the ground in Vietnam. No, it's like, what ally
are we talking about here?
Speaker 4 (20:00):
Yeah, this is so crazy.
Speaker 1 (20:02):
This is the John Fatterman line, is like, it doesn't
matter what they do, We're gonna support them no matter what.
Speaker 4 (20:06):
And it's like, that is insane. Even if you're just.
Speaker 1 (20:10):
Looking at narrow American interests, it's insane. Obviously if you're
looking at morality, you're literally saying like, no, I don't
think they're doing a gemside, but even if they were,
I would still support them. Like what, how can It
doesn't matter what they do, You're gonna send them whatever
they want, no matter what. That is crazy, It makes
no sense. And yet this is I mean, really, Israel
(20:33):
is very unique. You might put Ukraine in the same category.
I think Israel's very unique in people's willingness to just
say nope, don't care, don't care how many civilians are
just lotter, don't care that it's against her and just
don't care that we've turned all of the Middle East
against us, don't care that our troops are being fired
on because of Israel's policy, our support of Israel's policy,
don't care.
Speaker 4 (20:52):
It's Israel no matter what.
Speaker 1 (20:54):
Like you didn't you didn't swear an oath to Israel
when you were born in as a United States senator.
And but that's the way they act, like we're going
to put their interest over American interests, setting it explicitly.
I just it blows my mind, honestly blows my mind.
Speaker 2 (21:10):
I would be remissed if I didn't shout out of
Jonah Goldberg. This is a gentleman, one of those never
trumpers out there. He actually I have a personal beef
because he implied I was anti Semitic whenever I said
that the US military should only be used to defend America.
Speaker 4 (21:25):
That never happens.
Speaker 2 (21:26):
They never throw that flame around for what were I
have heard from a lot of reliably anti Trump people,
I mean really really anti Trump people have had it
with Biden tonight. Anecdotal but very telling in my circle.
So this is I mean, it was just digging about it.
It's like Afghanistan, you know, which they also had dual
loyalty to It's like one of those Oh that was fine,
you know all these other things they supposedly stand for conservatives.
(21:49):
I was, oh, that's just not a tumbbout Israel. That's
the one where we got to turn. Let's go and
put the next one up on the screen. It has
some of the details that Crystal was talking about. Militarily,
Actually there's some nificance here, but because we're specifically talking
about the two thousand and the five hundred pound bombs,
so it was eighteen hundred two thousand pound bombs and
seventeen hundred five hundred pound bombs quote long seen as
(22:10):
experts most likely to be targeted for any potential restrictions
because not only how destructive they are in urban settings,
but because of Israel's inability to actually manufacture or buy
them for themselves. That's another thing that is not talked
about enough here. Israel is a wealthy nation. Anybody who's
ever been there, it's like being in California. I mean literally,
(22:31):
they have universal health care, they have a crazy social
welfare state. They have the ability to support a massive
chunk of their population which does not work and is
paid by the state to have children and pray all day,
and you know, that's their society.
Speaker 3 (22:47):
They could do what they want.
Speaker 2 (22:49):
But I personally think that in the wealthy startup nation
that they love to brag about, for anybody who's ever
been there, you know what I'm saying, Well, they can
pay for their own shit. Is that really such a
controversial position. But as you said, Crystal, in the United
States of America, that is a very controversial position to take.
Speaker 1 (23:06):
There was also a discourse really a while back. It's
kind of a dead discourse now at this point because
it's so like patently obviously false. But of this whole like,
you know, well, Israel's their own country, and we really
don't have any say over what they do, you know,
like we don't really have any leverage. All these people
who claim that we could just you know, on a dime,
we could do something and they change their behavior.
Speaker 4 (23:28):
This is crazy. Clearly we do have leverage. Clearly it
does matter.
Speaker 1 (23:32):
There's already reports and is there's really press about how
dire it would get for them very quickly if we
actually cut off all of these weapons shipments.
Speaker 4 (23:42):
They would be in a real bind.
Speaker 1 (23:44):
They have to make some real decisions about what they
can and can't do, because remember they're not just in
the Gaza strip. They're also taking actions in the West Bank.
They're also you know, fighting on the Northern Front versus Hezbola.
You know, they had the back and forth with Iran
very recently that was started, let's never forget by their
provocation of bombing an Iranian embassy building in Damascus. It
(24:09):
really is important for people to understand all of this
is allowed and enabled by us. It can't happen with
on us, It really can't, it really can't, not just
from the weapons, from the diplomatic cover. How integral were
we shot down most of the Iranian drones and missiles
that were headed to is Or. We shot down a
majority of them. And that's why you know, this kind
(24:31):
even though there aren't US troops involved, although US troops
are coming under fire because of our support for Israeli actions,
but even though it's not directly our boots on the
ground in Gaza, we are so integral to this we
allow this to happen. And so yeah, there's a you know,
there's a full freak out about what it could mean.
(24:52):
Even just the pause of these shipments, some of that
freak out was was evidenced even after before or Biden
made these latest comments, after it came became public that
a weapon shipment had been paused. We have an Israeli
member the Kanessa and Lakud official, Tollie Gottlieb, who had
this to say. We can put this up on the
(25:13):
screen and I'll read it. She says, the US is
threatening not to give us precise missiles. Oh yeah, well
I got news for the US. We have imprecise missiles
and we have the right to defend ourselves. So maybe
instead of using a precise missile and taking down a
specific room or a specific building, I'll use my imprecise
missiles and I'll just collapse ten buildings, ten buildings, That's
(25:37):
what I'll do.
Speaker 9 (25:39):
She So.
Speaker 1 (25:41):
Just think about this, like, because you are withholding two
thousand pounds bombs, precise weapons because out of accountability for
our war crimes and the fact they've been used to
bomb civilians, guess what our response is to bomb even
more civilians.
Speaker 4 (25:59):
And you know, once again.
Speaker 1 (26:00):
A lot of discourse about what college students have to
say about this conflict. This is a member of the Kanesse,
a senior party official of Baby at Nyahu's party. This
is a powerful individual, and she talks in a just
brazenly atrocious manner and yes, genocidal manner about how she'll
(26:21):
take down ten buildings.
Speaker 4 (26:22):
She doesn't care.
Speaker 1 (26:24):
And the gall of these people after all that Joe
Biden has stood by you while you did, and the
minute there's even a little bit of a critique, they flip.
Speaker 4 (26:36):
On a dime and they're completely indignant.
Speaker 1 (26:38):
Ryan Grim, our own Ryan Grim at the State Department
briefing yesterday, asked Matthew Miller about these comments and pretty
surprisingly actually got a response.
Speaker 4 (26:48):
Let's take a listen to that.
Speaker 10 (26:49):
Leave Lacuda official. Remember the Kanessa. She said this, She said,
the US is threatening not to give us precise missiles.
Oh yeah, well, I've got news for the US. We
have imprecise missiles. We'll use it. We'll just collapse ten buildings,
ten buildings.
Speaker 3 (27:02):
That's what we'll do.
Speaker 10 (27:03):
So she's threatening that if Israel is held accountable for
war crimes, they will respond by committing greater war crimes.
What kind of effect does that have?
Speaker 9 (27:10):
I'd say those decision making.
Speaker 11 (27:11):
Those comments are absolutely deplorable, and senior members of the
Israeli government should refrain from making them. We will continue
to make our policy assessments based on what's in the
best interests of the American people, what is in the
best interests.
Speaker 9 (27:26):
Of the region.
Speaker 1 (27:27):
Absolutely deplorable. I'm surprised you got a response, because usually
all just be like, oh, I didn't see it, or
we'll look into it, or you know, they shouldn't say
bad things, but we support them, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 4 (27:37):
But he got a direct response.
Speaker 3 (27:38):
Yes, he certainly did.
Speaker 2 (27:40):
There's also this, This is my personal favorite, Crystal, I'll
put this up please on the screen, is that the
Israeli government is now warning that they they're warning the
US that if you pause weapons, that will jeopardize hostage negotiations.
So they're basically saying, if you take weapons away from us,
then we will pull out of hostage negotiations, and we
need those weapons to continue the war so we can
free the hostages.
Speaker 3 (28:00):
Do you understand what I'm saying.
Speaker 2 (28:01):
Yes, it's a very interesting circular logic that we all
have here in terms of the end result.
Speaker 3 (28:07):
I genuinely don't know.
Speaker 2 (28:08):
I saw It's von ben Gevier a tweet out this
morning coromote quote Hamas Heart Biden, which.
Speaker 3 (28:13):
Is not pretty instinct.
Speaker 2 (28:14):
That's correct for a I mean a member of the
Israeli government. I would not tolerate that from any foreign
government who is a recipient of foreign aid if I
were Biden. Apparently he's been tolerating things like that now
for quite some time.
Speaker 3 (28:28):
But yeah, it gets me to the point of just like,
who do you think you are?
Speaker 12 (28:31):
Man?
Speaker 3 (28:31):
Who again, who do you think you are?
Speaker 2 (28:33):
Yeah, you have armed weapons manufacturers in your country? No,
you know you need us, So how about you shut
your mouth and actually show us a little bit of respect.
But that's their arrogance, that's who they are.
Speaker 1 (28:43):
Well, and we know where that arrogance comes from, because
they've gotten away with everything up to this point. I
mean every like everything that the Biden has expressed was
a problem for him that he's asked to do and
had these tough conversations and very tough conversations about they
just did it anyway. I mean the strike on the
Ranian diplomatic building that was apparently that wasn't cleared with
(29:03):
the U.
Speaker 4 (29:04):
They just did it.
Speaker 1 (29:05):
And then you know, our have to drag our asses
into this thing and shoot down the missiles, make sure
that we're protecting Israel, etcetera, etcetera.
Speaker 4 (29:12):
So Biden has created.
Speaker 1 (29:14):
This climate of you know, just total brazen arrogance and
indifference to what the you know, American president might think
about things. He created that climate, and in terms of
the discourse, he fueled that discourse as well. You know,
how many times have we heard that, Oh, anyone who
(29:34):
anyone who's out protesting against this war, against Israeli actions
in the Gaza strip, they love Hamas, They're terrors, they
are Hamas, they say, I am Hamas, et cetera. So
when you co sign that branding of the entire movement
as being pro Hamas, then don't be surprised when that
(29:54):
rhetoric's used against you.
Speaker 3 (29:56):
Yep. I couldn't agree with you more.
Speaker 2 (29:58):
And the end results of this will all be very interesting.
Will Biden stay the course, We'll see. He has been
very stubborn sometimes in the past. He is also very
willing to cave. Personally, I think he's going to cave.
This is the strongest lobby in the history of Washington,
in terms of his own the people who are around him,
in terms of what the I mean think too about
(30:19):
what the Israelies can mobilize for our own domestic politics.
Like you may think, these campus protests and all that
can make your life miserable. What's even more miserable is
when all your donors and all these other people who
are so into the cost start pulling money away and
start exerting their influence.
Speaker 3 (30:33):
I could start and.
Speaker 2 (30:33):
Plus the media whipping this up, you know, into a frenzy.
I wouldn't bet so bet. I would not bet a
lot that he stays the course on this.
Speaker 4 (30:40):
Oh yeah, so tbd.
Speaker 1 (30:42):
What if anything these comments actually meant. Meanwhile, there's been
an insane legislative response to, in particular the campus protests.
The latest entry into this book as Marshall Blackburn, who
previously said that student protesters should be put on a
terrorism no fly list, she is now actually working to
(31:05):
codify that, drafting legislation along with Centator Roger Marshall that
would do exactly that. She talked about her plans on
her Instagram. Let's take a listen.
Speaker 9 (31:14):
Here's what I believe.
Speaker 12 (31:16):
If they are foreign students and they're here on a visa,
we will pull the visa and deport them. They will
never come back in this country. If they're American students
in their own student loans that are text Bay or
funded by the way, let's pull those student loans. Anyone
who stands in shouts I am humus. Then what they
(31:40):
should do is to be placed on the terrorist watch list.
If they're going to tell us they are a terrorist,
we should believe them.
Speaker 2 (31:51):
And obviously the no fly list there actually pretty well.
Because the thing is is that in that video Crystal
she advocates just for foreign students, but actually, if you
take a look at the legislation, we can put this
up there on the screen, it would actually designate student
protesters as terrorists and add them to the no filists.
So this actually includes US citizens, a genuine breach in.
Speaker 3 (32:15):
My opinion of constitutional rights.
Speaker 4 (32:18):
Unfortunately.
Speaker 2 (32:18):
Yeah, but unfortunately, during the War on Terror, as we
all discovered, being on the no filist actually doesn't technically
violate your constitutional rights according to the Bush administration, the
Department of Justice, and some Supreme Court litigation that unfortunately
did not go the way that it should have. So
this again actually demonstrates the danger of the post nine
to eleven security state as it is then applied to
(32:39):
US citizens and specifically actually in this case, because we
are talking about people who are protesting in that case.
I mean, I'm not going to defend the no filists
of that time, but the justification was is that they're
actively members of a.
Speaker 3 (32:52):
Foreign terrorist organization, right.
Speaker 2 (32:53):
In this case, like aiding and abetting the enemy, right,
Like genuinely treasonous behavior. Again, it was the way it
was applied diculous, and hence I don't support it. In
this case though, we're talking about people who are protesting
the actions of a foreign government then being labeled as
terrorists and being included on the no filist Another thing
I would point out to many of our right wing
listeners is don't forget how there were no flylist was
(33:14):
trotted out after the January sixth prosecutions and members of
the you know Trump you know or whatever pro Trump
MAGA people were also placed on the no fly list
as well, debanked, and basically had the power of both
the state and the non institutional parties or institutional non
governmental organizations thrown at you.
Speaker 3 (33:32):
We're watching the exact same thing that's happened in play
out right here.
Speaker 1 (33:35):
I mean, it is so clear that whyatt was so
important to oppose things like this at the time during
the War on Terror, because you could see the way
even though the public was all behind it and it
felt good at yeah, we're going to make sure these
terrorists can't fly and we got to keep ourselves safe.
Like it was very it was very understandable that the
(33:56):
public had that sentiment, but you had to look at
the details and say, well, how else could this be used?
How is it being there's literally no judicial oversight of this.
It's kept secret. Who's being even put on this list.
Those were all massive problems and red flags at the time.
And now the way that we see it's being used
against American citizens who it would apply to, Like you know,
(34:19):
these kids who are camping out on their campuses, they
get charged with trust passing boom, you're a terrorist and
you're on a no fly list. Like that's crazy. It's
absolutely crazy if you look at if you look at that, Texas.
That's not the only legislative initiative either. We didn't pull
an element for this one. But I was just telling
Soccer this morning. There's another bill that was introduced by
(34:41):
Andy Ogles of Tennessee and Jeff Duncan of South Carolina
and Randy Weber of Texas that would send college protesters
to Gaza for six months if they, I believe a
similar thing, if they, like you know, were charged with
trespassing or some sort of like broken window or whatever,
(35:06):
then they would be sent to Gaza for six months.
And the thing that Andy Ogle said about this is
like they wouldn't last a minute there, and it's like, yeah,
that's their point, is that Gaza is under a massive
assault and.
Speaker 4 (35:17):
People are being starved. Like if you.
Speaker 1 (35:19):
Support that, maybe you're the one that should be sent
to Gaza. If you think there's rarely military is so
humane and everything's all well and good and Gaza, perhaps
you're the one who should go and tell us how
great it is, tell us how much aid is going in,
let us know how it's going there. So, I mean,
just the climate is I've never seen anything. I even
going back to the height of the War on Terror,
(35:40):
I genuinely have not seen anything quite like what we're experiencing.
Speaker 2 (35:44):
I think the War on Terror was worse, you know,
freedom fries and all that. Let's not erase some of
the other insanity that happened at that time. The other
thing we can point out to let's put this up
there on the screen. And I guess what makes it
crazier is that we're we are displaying significant similar levels
of his area on behalf of a country and of
a conflict of which we are not even technically the
(36:06):
primary actor in.
Speaker 3 (36:07):
And I think that is what is so calling.
Speaker 2 (36:09):
Here we have from Jewish Insider House bills will ask
the US Holocaust Museum to develop curriculum on the October
seventh attack, creating resources for secondary schools and elementary schools
to teach about October seven and subsequent anti Semitic and
anti Israel sentiment. Now, the reason you should all be
very afraid of this is because, unlike the Andy Oogles bill,
(36:31):
this thing actually has a chance of going somewhere, and
going somewhere, I think, well, don't forget the International Holocaust
Remembrance definition of anti Semitism is the exact definition of
anti Semitism, which was then passed through the US Congress.
So this demonstrates very clearly that we would be using
definitions outsourcing them to foreign organizations or non governmental organs.
(36:53):
They should have a direct interest in protecting the State
of Israel and pushing an agenda and then importing and
putting that into US classrooms.
Speaker 3 (37:00):
Now, if we're talking about science, okay, that's.
Speaker 2 (37:02):
One thing, right, Well, we're talking about learning about a
foreign government. First of all, why should like little kids
even be learning about October seventh at all?
Speaker 3 (37:10):
Like, for what purpose?
Speaker 2 (37:12):
You know, whenever you're like sub eight years old, to
the extent they should learn about October seventh. Yeah, think
they should learn about autrocities, I guess all over the world,
and maybe about what happened subsequently in US support and
all of that. But we we don't even spend enough
time on our own history of like Vietnam or World
War One. I think we can spend a little bit
less time on the histories of other places.
Speaker 4 (37:31):
I mean, listen, you probably hear this and you're like, okay,
what's wrong with learning?
Speaker 3 (37:35):
No, you should have a problem with that.
Speaker 1 (37:36):
If it was going to be all right, we're going
to we're going to take a look at this comp
We're going to dig into the origins. We're going to
tell you what happened so you can understand why this,
you know, continues to persist in the nature of the occupation. No, no, no,
this is not what you're going to get from this
Josh Gottheimer bill. The bill requests the new curriculum include
information about October seventh attack, how the history of anti
Semitism contributed to the attack, not about the land dispute
(38:01):
in the occupation and the blockade, but the history of
anti Semitism, as President Biden said, the ancient hatreds and desires. Right,
that's the only thing that led to October seventh. Okay,
even though there were many non Jews who were killed
on that day. By the way, it's also going to
talk about the quote unquote spread of anti Semitism and
anti Israel rhetoric on campuses, conflating of course, anti Semitism
(38:24):
and anti Israel rhetoric and the spread of anti Israel
rhetoric on social media. So we've got to also learn
how TikTok was. You know, the real villain of October
seventh was actually TikTok. So it's not like you're getting
an actually factual understanding for our children of what led
(38:45):
to October seventh, what happened on October seventh, what happened
after October seventh. No, you're getting a it's like the
Israeli government wrote the propaganda piece for our own kids,
which in effect they basically are. Because I guarantee, if
you look at these two individuals who are sponsoring this
bill's contribution history, I would bet very strongly that they've
(39:06):
received some I know, for a fat Gotttheimer. I don't
really know the other dude that much, but that they've
received some campaign finance that may have, you know, helped
to fortify them in their pro Israel no matter what sentiment.
Speaker 4 (39:19):
Just a guess here, that's right.
Speaker 1 (39:23):
We are extraordinarily fortunate to be joined this morning by
Francesca Albaniz. She is an international lawyer and also the
UN's Special Rapperteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories.
Speaker 4 (39:33):
Welcome, it's great to have you.
Speaker 9 (39:35):
Thank you do so.
Speaker 1 (39:37):
To start with, I wanted to get your reaction to
some breaking news from yesterday President Biden saying that he
would halt some weaponshipments to Israel if they launched what
he described as a major invasion into Rafa. Given what
you know about the humanitarian situation on the ground in
Gaza and in Rafa specifically, I wonder if you could
(39:57):
speak to the significance of his comments.
Speaker 9 (40:02):
I welcome this decision.
Speaker 13 (40:04):
I wish it had come earlier because the situation in
the Gaza strip is catastrophic, and of course all the
more in Rapha, where one point five million people are amasked,
including six hundred thousand children. The fact that there is
no new shipment of weapons central Israel again is positive,
(40:25):
although I understand that Israel's reaction has been that they
will use.
Speaker 9 (40:29):
What I have.
Speaker 2 (40:32):
So one of the things that we wanted to get
from you is just a broader discussion of some of
the case that you had brought forward or had argued
before before the ICC. So I'm wondering if you could
give our audience, a US based audience, a view into
some of the case that facts in the matter that
you were able to discuss. Why you think it is
(40:53):
important now in this context, even with the war continuing.
Speaker 13 (40:58):
Well, the ICC has jurisdiction over crimes of war, crimes,
genocide and crimes against humanity, as well as the crime
and aggression.
Speaker 9 (41:10):
I do not have the detail.
Speaker 13 (41:12):
Of how the ic C and the Officer of the
Prosecutor are qualifying the crimes they might have found in
the context of their investigation in the situation of Palestine.
Speaker 9 (41:25):
But I, as you might know from my.
Speaker 13 (41:28):
Latest report presented to the Human Rights Counsel of the
United Nations. I think that the grounds to believe that
Israel has committed genocide in Gada are there, so I'm
anxious to tique the ICC proceeding with hopefully arrest warrants,
(41:49):
of course, both against Israeli leaders and Hamas leaders for
what has happened.
Speaker 4 (41:56):
On seventh over so Frantasica.
Speaker 1 (41:59):
In the context of your report, which found reasonable grounds
to believe that Israel is committing genocide in the Gaza Strip,
what Israel's defenders will say is they are working hard
to avoid civilian.
Speaker 4 (42:10):
Casualties in Rafa.
Speaker 1 (42:12):
They leafleitted asking people to evacuate. They say, listen, what
other country uses these sort of techniques to get civilians
out of harm's way. That it is Hamas's fault that
there has been such a high civilian death toll because
they operate out of population centers and places allegedly like hospitals.
What is your response to that critique of your analysis, Well.
Speaker 13 (42:37):
This is not what has happened on the ground in
Gaza for the past seven months, and again we are
talking of Uger half a year. All the casualties and
the destruction seventy percent of Gaza has been destroyed. In
terms of civilian infrastructure, including a livelihood, the essential livelihood.
(42:59):
There is a total located that has been ongoing which
prevents unfactored aid including water, of.
Speaker 9 (43:07):
Food, meditation, and fuel entering Gaza.
Speaker 13 (43:10):
This has been hampered over and over, and I reject
the argument that they have tried to avoid civilian casualties
because seventy percent of the victims of the reported victims
of this conflict have steadily been women and children, and
(43:31):
so this has been the situation that should have been
addressed from the first weeks of the conflict. That there
is another element to beta collected by many victims and
survivors that have investigated over the past months, they said
that since the very beginning they realized that Israel.
Speaker 9 (43:45):
Was after something else with this war because.
Speaker 13 (43:47):
They have seen Israel hitting indiscriminately symbols of Palestinian civilian
life like universities, churches, again, essential livelihoods and hospitals. I
also argue in the report that Israel has not rejected
(44:08):
the allegations of the conduct that test taken place. They
have differently qualified it, just defined it as in compliance
with international Human Italian law, which I called you, which
I call human Italian camouflash. Israel has justified by using
international human Italian law jargon its military operations, for example, saying, yeah,
but we ordered evacuations. The first evacuation was an evaluation
(44:32):
order that the target at one point one million people,
and it was said in an area that, by the way,
comprised the twenty two hospitals, and they said, never remains
behind will be considered a terrorist accomplice. And this is
not the way to protect civilians. All the more Over,
forty two percent of the casualties during the first weeks
(44:53):
and months of the conflict where in area that had
been identified as safe.
Speaker 9 (44:58):
This is very is very dangerous.
Speaker 13 (45:00):
It's an indication of how little precutions were taken. So
the principle of distinctions between civilians and military and the
principle of precutions were completed.
Speaker 2 (45:10):
One question I had for you was given that the
US and Israel, the two primary I guess the participants
on this side of the war, are not party to
the ICC. Why do you believe that it was important
to bring this case forward for your own participation if
there isn't going to be any immediate enforcement on behalf
(45:32):
of those two governments.
Speaker 9 (45:35):
Well, there is.
Speaker 13 (45:36):
A jurisdiction of the ICC over war happened in the
Occupied Palestine and territory.
Speaker 9 (45:45):
This is under the jurisdiction of the board.
Speaker 13 (45:47):
And these suppolls squarely in also the interest of Israel,
because Israel is the occupying power in the in Jaza Strip,
the West Bank and the Jerusalem.
Speaker 9 (46:00):
So despite the fact that Israel's.
Speaker 13 (46:02):
Not a member, is not a party to the Roman Statude,
it's directly affected by it.
Speaker 1 (46:09):
Francesca, I wonder if you could talk a little bit
about the current humanitarian situation on the ground. There have
been reports israel Is claiming that they've increased the amount
of aid that is going into the Gaza Strip. On
the other hand, you have Cindy McCain, the head of
the UN World Food program saying that northern Gaza is
(46:30):
in full blown famine and that is rapidly creeping south.
What can you say about the current situation whether there
has in fact been an increase in the amount of
aid getting into Gaza, that.
Speaker 13 (46:44):
Any increase is in the margins. Again, that the situation
in the Gaza Strip is beyond despair. This is the
reality and I keep them saying it Israel disputes the
figures that are provided by the United Nations. Well, why
doesn't Israel allow independent.
Speaker 9 (47:02):
Monitors to enter the Gazza strips?
Speaker 13 (47:04):
Why Israel doesn't allow journalists to enter because of strips?
Speaker 9 (47:07):
This is the only conflict, if you want to pull
it like.
Speaker 13 (47:10):
That, that has no foreign correspondence, And it's astonishing.
Speaker 9 (47:15):
The reality is dramatic.
Speaker 13 (47:17):
What I hear not only from the United Nations to
human dire operators on the ground, but also from many survivors.
It's catastrophic and I've seen it with my own eyes.
VI's in hospitals in the region where there are especially
those who have been evacuated from Gaza in the last
two weeks and months.
Speaker 9 (47:34):
They are severely malnourished, especially the children.
Speaker 13 (47:36):
So there is no question that famine has hit parts
of Gaza heavily.
Speaker 9 (47:42):
And the north, whatever is above.
Speaker 13 (47:46):
The White Gaza has been almost off limits to the
entry obeyed. Whatever that has entered from the south has
been in heavily contingent and so very very limited. But
also it's impossible to deliver aid. This is something that
ANA has announced over and over. I mentioned Ana because
this is the agency which has the largest capacity to
(48:08):
deliver aid in the in the Gaza Strip, and that's
been humpered by the bombing, the continuous bombing which has
never stopped, the huge destruction to infrastructure, including roads, and
the danger that is sense. So especially now with the
control that in Israel maintains over the Rapha crossing.
Speaker 9 (48:28):
The United Nations are already saying.
Speaker 13 (48:30):
That there is absolutely not enough aid that enters the
You know, there have been at tents to deliver food
from from the sea and from air. But I find
it even a bit cynical, if you allow me to
say so, because it does not say that's not been
delivered according to humanitarian standards, to the no armed principle,
(48:51):
and so it has been off as are the d
and even even dangerous, even lethal in a number of
cases because the air drop US peoples Francesca.
Speaker 1 (49:03):
As you know, the International Court of Justice is currently
considering a courtesy of a case brought by South Africa,
whether Israel is committing genocide violating those conventions in the
Gaza Strip. They issued a preliminary finding that was widely
reported and understood to be that they found it the
case to be at least applausible. However, Joan Donahue, who
(49:25):
just retired as president of the ICJ, recently spoke with
the BBC and indicated this was not the correct way
to think about this initial finding. Let's take a listen
to what she had to say, and then I want
to get your reaction and break down on the other side.
Speaker 14 (49:40):
I'm glad I have a chance to address that because
the court test for deciding whether to impose measures uses
the idea of plausibility. But the test is the plausibility
of the rights that are asserted by the applicant, in
this case South Africa. So the court decided that the
Palestinians had a place pausible right to be protected from
(50:02):
genocide and that South Africa had the right to present
that claim in the court. It then looked at the
facts as well, but it did not decide and this
is something where I'm correcting what's often said in the media.
It didn't decide that the claim of genocide was plausible.
It did emphasize in the order that there was a
(50:25):
risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian right to be
protected from genocide. But the shorthand that often appears, which
is that there's a plausible case of genocide, isn't what
the court decided.
Speaker 1 (50:37):
Francesca, if you could help us understand what the Court
did and did not decide in terms of this ICJ
potential genocide case.
Speaker 13 (50:47):
Yes, I think the first all we need to understand
that if there was no case to be heard over
alleged to genocide and Gaza, the case would have been
stopped in its trucks, just as Israel requested.
Speaker 9 (50:57):
Instead, the ICJ issued a preliminary of.
Speaker 13 (51:00):
Preliminary measures on the twenty sixth of January and another
on the twenty eighth of March, and does not bring
either the South Africa versus Israel, not the Nicaraguabus Germany.
Speaker 9 (51:10):
Cases that are still pending now.
Speaker 13 (51:13):
The twenty sixth of January orders said there is a
risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian right to be
protected from genocide. There risk can only exist if someone
exclusively threatening that right.
Speaker 9 (51:29):
So it seems to me that there.
Speaker 13 (51:30):
Is a confusion over semantics. So the possible right at
risk is the right and not to be genocided.
Speaker 2 (51:39):
So a bigger and more philosophical question. In your report,
you wrote about the anatomy of a genocide. Could you
define for us what genocide means I guess under international
law and by the United Nations, and then give us
some historical examples other than the Holocaust of what we
should look to so that people can wrap their heads around.
Speaker 13 (52:02):
I'm glad you asked me this question, Slagara, because especially
in the Western world, I find that there is a
huge confusion over what genocide means, and there is of
court and it should be so. I mean, the Holocaust
should remain great in our memory, especially I speak as
a European, and the Holocaust should never be forgotten, and
(52:22):
what led.
Speaker 9 (52:23):
To the Holocausts should not be forgotten.
Speaker 13 (52:25):
At the same time, what constitute genocides is not established
by necessarily by by presidents or personal opinion or personal experiences,
painful as they are. What constitutes GENOCIDEY is established by
Article two of the nineteen forty eight Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and genocide
(52:47):
is defined as a set of acts committed with intent
to destroy.
Speaker 9 (52:54):
National, racial, ethnic, or.
Speaker 13 (52:56):
Religious group in a whole or in power art as such,
and it includes a series of acts like killing members
of the group, infliction of severe bodily or mental harm
to members of the group, or the creation of conditions
of life that would lead to the destruction of the group.
Speaker 9 (53:13):
To mention the three cases that I found relevant.
Speaker 13 (53:17):
In the case of side, of course, the treasury is
very high because one is to prove not only the
intent to commit to those crimes, but also the intent
to come to destroy the people in all or in part,
the protected group in all or in part through these acts,
So the specific intent to commit genocide.
Speaker 9 (53:39):
The other example of history, we say history is replenished
of store.
Speaker 13 (53:46):
Incidents and the cases of genocide. The very history of
colonialism is replenished of genocide or ideology and practices. And
this is something that we understand very well if we
read the important literature that hasn't been left, including by
(54:07):
Raphi Lenkin, the scholar who coined who gave the world
genocide Francisca.
Speaker 1 (54:14):
Why would a finding of genocide matter from the ICJ, Because,
as has been reported and has always discussed when this
case is discussed, the ICJ doesn't really have enforcement powers,
So what does it even matter what they do? What
does it even matter if this term actually comes to
be applied to Israel's actions with regard to the Pacadian people,
(54:36):
specifically in the Gaza strip. What's your response to that
on the potential impact of this case.
Speaker 13 (54:43):
Crystal, Your question is very important because while the ICJ
determination in conclusions is critical to establish state responsibility over
the crime of genocide, the Genocide Convention refers to the
need to end the obligation to prevent genocide. I would
(55:05):
like to say that the ICJ conclusions and measures, including
provisional measures, are binding. So while the direct enforcement relies
upon states, it's very important that the compass is established
to buy the ICJ. Similarly important is the finding the
investigation and the conclusions of national courts and the ICIC
(55:29):
who then have the responsibility to identify individual criminal liability.
Speaker 9 (55:35):
But again, the obligation to.
Speaker 13 (55:37):
Prevent genocide is triggered by the risk that genocide is
being committed, and for me, that moment was reached on
the twenty six of January, when the Court is concluded
that there is a plausibility of risk for the rights
protected under the Genocide Convention for the.
Speaker 9 (55:55):
Palestinians in Gaza. Why is it important.
Speaker 13 (55:58):
It's important because in these instruments are and these mechanisms
are the one leading to justice. But for me, the
very existence of a convention which has in itself the
obligation which is ERGA governments, applies to all member states,
including those who are not party to the Genocide Convention,
to prevent genocide. Giving the gravity of this crime is necessary.
(56:23):
I mean, we cannot wait for the for the determination
of the Court to prevent genocide, otherwise the genocide mind
be committed.
Speaker 2 (56:33):
My question is, so the defense here in the United
States by the Israelis is that mass civilian death is
frankly just. I guess part and parcel as they would
put it, of an urban military campaign. The Israeli defenders
have been pointing to US and Iraqi military actions.
Speaker 3 (56:50):
In the city of Mosul.
Speaker 2 (56:51):
There have been previous comparisons to the number of civilian
casualties who are incurred in the Second World War. How
do you think about the difference between those two or
three examples. What level of civilian casualty is accepted? How
do you parse intent? Whenever you are writing your report
(57:12):
and you're thinking, as you said, through the genocide conventions.
Speaker 13 (57:16):
I think that is the arguments that have been offered
and that you voted for me are a way to
divert the attention from what is happening on the ground
and the need to have scrutiny.
Speaker 9 (57:28):
Over Israel's practices.
Speaker 13 (57:30):
This is not a case like any other, because Israel
is the occupying power in the Gaza Strip and so
should take the utmost precautions in ensuring that the occupied
population is protected and is spared from the previous impact
of any conflict. Now, and this is not the first
conflict that has occurred in Gaza. This is the sixth,
(57:51):
of course, the most the most valid. Again, I go
back to the point that I said in the beginning
the action that Israelist can have been indiscriminated and have
targeted civilians, there is.
Speaker 9 (58:01):
No question about that.
Speaker 13 (58:02):
But this is something that I reflect from the very
first days of the revengeful military operation against the Gaza Strip,
because the very idea of targeting Hamas, going after Hamas
considering anyone as a terrorist was very dangerous, was very blurred.
Where is the distinction between the civilians and the combatants.
(58:23):
We know that who can be targeted under international uanitary
law are active combatants.
Speaker 9 (58:29):
So even a soldier, including Israeli soldiers.
Speaker 13 (58:31):
Cannot be targeted unless they are inactive combat and if
they have surrendered, they need to be respected. They can
be taken prisoners, but they cannot be executed.
Speaker 9 (58:41):
So there is a.
Speaker 13 (58:42):
Respect for the right to life in international humanitary laws
in situational conflict, which is minimum, it's not absolute. And
at the same time, this is the minimum threshold not
to fall into complete brutality, cruelty and lack of humanity.
So what has happened in Gaza is again Israel has
justified inductions like okay, we have killed these many people
(59:05):
because there were human shields. Where where is the evidence
we know from the investigations that israelis in themselves. Israeli
jornan Is carried out that artificial intelligence has been deployed
up to the point that in order to target one
hamas fighter or combatant and a risk up to one
(59:26):
hundred people has been calculated. So there are being instances
and documented distances like in Jovali, a camp where one
of one hundred people were killed and one hundred people
were injured just because there was one military.
Speaker 9 (59:39):
Combatant allegedly there. We don't know if in active combat
or not was was present.
Speaker 13 (59:45):
Again, in the these are not precautions and it is
not respectable princible distinction. So even if even if there
was a legitimate reason to start the war against the
Kaza strip, the weight it has been sorry, the way
it has been conducted is absolutely against any basic principle
(01:00:06):
of international law.
Speaker 1 (01:00:08):
We also have a lot of statements from senior Israeli officials,
some of which you document in your report, some of
which are documented in the South African case at the ICJ,
that seem to indicate genocidal intent, talking about no one
involves civilians, describing all everyone in Gaza as animals reference
to Biblical anlek et cetera. How important are those statements
(01:00:33):
from Israeli officials. Now what they would say is, oh,
this is just heat of the moment, this is populous rhetoric.
It's not actually being translated into policy. So how significant
and consequential do you find those statements to be?
Speaker 12 (01:00:47):
No?
Speaker 13 (01:00:48):
Indeed, if we look at the international Jewish prudence, for example,
stemming from the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia or Ruanda,
we can definitely see that statements of victuals per see
do not constitute to the hardcore evidence to prove that
there is general side. In fact, what I claim is
that on the one hand, there has been a look
(01:01:10):
at the legal legal documents that have animated this or
have led to this military campaign, but also what has
happened on the ground, because those words that you have,
those horrible words that you have mentioned in the beginning,
have resonated, have reverberated, have been internalized and acted upon
by soldiers on the ground.
Speaker 9 (01:01:31):
I mean, it's been really, really.
Speaker 13 (01:01:33):
Soul consuming heartbreaking to see the self incriminatory videos that
Israeli soldiers themselves have posted on social media and see
significant number of whom I verified, including the technical experts,
where they claim to have his entire neighborhoods as a
revenge against the ded animals who carried out the seventh
(01:01:57):
of October attack, and they have often and quoted this
language the camelekt. They have talked of the full destruction
of Gaza, and soldiers have repeated we came here to destroy,
to occupy, and to.
Speaker 9 (01:02:13):
And to settle.
Speaker 13 (01:02:14):
And this is something that again as they could, so
powerful across the infantry that has been deployed on the
ground that it is really scary m hm.
Speaker 3 (01:02:24):
One of the reasons that I.
Speaker 13 (01:02:26):
Think, let me say, let me just I think it's
important to implement what I said in the beginning. So
in order to determine whether there is genocide, we need
to find the intent.
Speaker 9 (01:02:37):
And intent cannot be determined only.
Speaker 13 (01:02:40):
On the words and the ordal statements of policy makers,
but can be can be inferred. And again, when there
is such a nature, scale and patterns of conducts that
speak to the same intent, and there is a reality
and the capacity to carry out genocide, well this is
where the intent to become puspicious and facious.
Speaker 2 (01:03:03):
One of the reasons that we reached out to you
originally was a response from the US State Department where
they appeared to imply that you were anti Semitic. So
we have some of the comments here from the State
Department spoke for sin Matt Miller, and we'll get your reaction.
Speaker 3 (01:03:17):
Let's take a listen.
Speaker 11 (01:03:18):
We have long, for long standing, for a long standing
period of time, opposed the mandate of this special Rapporteur,
which we believe is not productive. And when it comes
to the individual who holds that position, I can't help
but note history of anti Submitic comments that she has
made that have.
Speaker 8 (01:03:38):
Been and made anti Semitic comments she has.
Speaker 11 (01:03:41):
And comments she made in December that appeared to adju
justify the attacks of October seventh, So I think it's
important to take that into account. But with respect to
the report itself, we have made clear that we believe
that allegations of genocide are unfounded.
Speaker 3 (01:03:58):
So we wanted to give you a chance to respond
to that.
Speaker 13 (01:04:01):
Okay, First of all, the US has never considered this
as always contested, like Israel, the value of this mandate,
and this is something that precedes me and as little
to do with my persona, while the comments of the
spoken person had to do very much with my persona.
And I was appolled when I heard that a senior
(01:04:24):
US suficial could spread these lies, because there are lies.
Speaker 9 (01:04:29):
First of all, I've never ever justified. It's appalling.
Speaker 13 (01:04:33):
I've never justified the seventh of October attacks.
Speaker 9 (01:04:35):
I've said that.
Speaker 13 (01:04:36):
These acts were brutal, were criminal, and I have said
that there should be an a There is an absolute
need to have investigation and prosecution of those crimes. I've
said also, we need to understand where this hatred comes from.
What I have rejected is the qualification of those acts
as motivated by antisemitism, because, first of all, there.
Speaker 9 (01:04:56):
Is no evidence of it.
Speaker 13 (01:04:57):
The second second thing is that there are is really
scholars themselves who say that it's very responsible to put
the burden of what has happened on alleged antisemitism of
Palestinians because the responsal realizis Israel, and they put textualizes
the horror that as the second place in occupied Palestinian terrory,
(01:05:19):
territory for fifty six years, which might might have fed
the hatred.
Speaker 9 (01:05:24):
So again I pushed back on this allegation. The allegation
of antisemitism is.
Speaker 13 (01:05:32):
Repulsive, as disgusting for me is antisemitis. As a human
rights lawyer, I'm engaged against antisemitism, against anti ISLAMO sorry,
against Islamophobia, Arabophobia, any form of discriminations, including anti Palestinian racism.
And what I really very much reject is that the
allegation of antisemitism is used more and more to distract
(01:05:56):
from Israel's responsibility, which is something that also not only
betrays what antisemitism is, but creates new dangers for the
Jewish people wherever they are. We need to distinguish what
is Judaism and what is Israel's conducts. And I've always said,
and I'm on record, I've always said any Jewish person
is allowed to have all the feelings and love for
(01:06:20):
Israel they want. What I stand against is the unconsctionable
stance of governments in sheltering Israel accountability and which protracts
its impunity.
Speaker 1 (01:06:35):
Well, Frantasca, I guess you can take comfort in the
fact that you're far from alone and being labeled as
anti Semitic for her views with regard to what Israel's
during the Gaza strip. I'm sure you're familiar with the
discourse here, including from the President of the United States,
about the campus protesters that have You know, these protests
have really taken off across the country, students who are
calling for a ceasefire, calling for the US and their
(01:06:57):
support for what they see, as you do, as a genocide.
I wanted to get your reaction to Speaker of the
House Mike Johnson made some very noteworthy comments on Holocaust
Remembrance Day about these protests and the character of these protests.
Speaker 15 (01:07:12):
Let's take a listen to that the very campuses which
were once the envy of the International Academy have succumbed
to an anti Semitic virus. Students who were known for
producing academic papers are now known for stabbing their Jewish
peers in the eyes with Palestinian flags and with our
survivors before us. If you close your eyes and the
(01:07:36):
quietness of your own heart, you can almost hear the
glass of Jewish storefronts shattered by stormtroopers. You could see
fathers being executed at point blank in the ghettos. You
can feel a brother's hand slipping out of his sisters
as men in uniforms separate them into lines and they
can only mouth to one another. Everything will be okay,
(01:07:59):
hoping that would be.
Speaker 4 (01:08:01):
So, Francesca. At first, just to correct the record, there.
Speaker 1 (01:08:03):
Are no documented incidents of anyone being stabbed with the
eye by a flag or any other thing. Just wanted
to put that out there. But here you see the
speaker of the house labeling American students, equating them to Nazis,
very much echoing the rhetoric of Israeli President Benjamin Niaho.
This has been used to justify quite an extensive crackdown
(01:08:26):
and criminalization of these protests. I wonder what your reaction
as an international human rights lawyer is both to this
language but also to the response to these campus protests.
Speaker 10 (01:08:37):
Well, let me.
Speaker 9 (01:08:38):
React on the remarks.
Speaker 13 (01:08:39):
First, I find Speaker Johnson's remarks both in felicitous and
in natury the comparative evolutions of college campus protests against
c CRU's conducting Gaza because the people we are talking
about to antisemitism, to the heinous of revolting antisemitism that
led to the Hall of Us is not only historically inappropriate,
(01:09:02):
but also functions to divert the attention from the subsubti
issues at hand, namely the growing body of evidence regarding
the atrospity grinds committed in Gaza that clearly this young
generation globally across the world cannot stomach anymore.
Speaker 9 (01:09:17):
I also found that this is.
Speaker 13 (01:09:18):
A rhetorical tactic exploiting the memory of the Holocos, instrumentalizing
one of the history greatest atrocities for contemporary purposes is
unacceptable because it undermines the gravity and uniqueness of the
Holocaust while simultanently obscuring the pressing concerns in the occupied
palacy and territory. And I believe that as we aim
(01:09:40):
to foster a constructive and respective, respectful discourse, it is
crucial that historical comparisons are made with careful considerations of
their accuracy and their implications, and going to the protests
in US campuses, I can tell as a European this
is spreading across the world anyone including I mean, I
(01:10:00):
live in an Arab country, and everyone is looking at
these young people as the most courageous and I do
share the team, so I keep.
Speaker 9 (01:10:10):
On saying I hope that they stay peaceful and.
Speaker 13 (01:10:13):
Respectful and ixtalate any element that my represent a threat
to anyone in the university. But I also want to
say that there are many Jewish students among them. And again,
and this is what gives me hope that the new
generation doesn't buy anymore what has been.
Speaker 9 (01:10:32):
The narratives are sold by leadership and nowadays.
Speaker 1 (01:10:40):
Francesca Albany, is you on special rappator. Thank you so
much for taking some time with us this morning. We're
extremely grateful and now you're very busy.
Speaker 2 (01:10:46):
Thanks for your time. Thank you, Thank you guys so
much for watching. We really appreciate it for supporting us.
Make sure you go and sign up breakingpoints dot com.
You can get early access to the Counterpoints debates and
support some of the work there and help US interview
you an officials. That's the first one for me, so
thank you all very much. Otherwise, we'll see you all
next week.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Nikki Glaser Podcast
Every week comedian and infamous roaster Nikki Glaser provides a fun, fast-paced, and brutally honest look into current pop-culture and her own personal life.