In January of 2025, the human rights organization, Democracy in the Arab World Now (DAWN), made a formal request with the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate former U.S. officials President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin for their accessorial roles in aiding and abetting, as well as intentionally contributing to, Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.
With the support of ICC-registered lawyers and other war crimes experts, the submission details a pattern of deliberate and purposeful decisions by these officials to provide military, political, and public support to facilitate Israeli crimes in Gaza; this support included at least $17.9 billion of weapons transfers, intelligence sharing, targeting assistance, diplomatic protection, and official endorsement of Israeli crimes, despite knowledge of how such support had and would substantially enable grave abuses.
Join host Sahar Aziz in conversation with Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of DAWN, about the key facts and law supporting the request for the International Criminal Court to investigate Biden officials for aiding and abetting Israeli War Crimes in Gaza.
#Israel #Palestine #Gaza #Genocide #ICC #HumanRights
Support the Center for Security, Race and Rights by following us and making a donation:
Donate: https://give.rutgersfoundation.org/csrr-support/20046.html
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rucsrr
Follow us on Instagram: https://instagram.com/rutgerscsrr
Follow us on Threads: https://threads.com/rutgerscsrr
Follow us on Facebook: https://facebook.com/rucsrr
Follow us on TikTok: https://tiktok.com/rucsrr
Subscribe to our Newsletter: https://csrr.rutgers.edu/newsroom/sign-up-for-newsletter/
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
UNKNOWN (00:00):
Thank you.
SPEAKER_00 (00:06):
Hello and welcome to the Race and Rights Podcast.
This is Sahar Aziz,Distinguished Professor at
Rutgers University Law Schooland author of the book, The
Racial Muslim, When RacismQuashes Religious Freedom.
I also serve as the ExecutiveDirector of the Rutgers Law
School Center for Security, Raceand Rights.
You can follow me on socialmedia at saharazizlaw and learn
(00:27):
more about my work atsaharazizlaw.com.
The Center for Security, Raceand Rights, also known as CSRR,
engages in research, educationThank you.
(01:06):
to the csrr.rutgers.edu websiteand press the donate button.
And please give generously.
In today's episode, I speak withSarah Lee Whitson, the executive
director of Democracy in theArab World Now, also known as
DAWN, about the human rightsorganization's formal request
with the International CriminalCourt to investigate former U.S.
(01:27):
officials President Joe Biden,Secretary of State Antony
Blinken, and Secretary ofDefense Lloyd Austin.
The request alleges that thesehigh-level U.S.
officials aided and abetted, aswell as intentionally
contributed to, Israeli warcrimes and crimes against
humanity in Gaza.
With the support ofICC-registered lawyers and other
war crimes experts, thesubmission details a pattern of
(01:50):
deliberate and purposefuldecisions by these officials to
provide military, political, andpublic support to facilitate
Israeli crimes in Gaza.
This support included at least$18 billion of weapons
transfers, intelligence sharing,targeting assistance, diplomatic
protection, and officialendorsement of Israeli crimes.
(02:11):
Despite knowledge of how suchsupport had and would
substantially enable graveabuses.
Let's hear what our guest has tosay about the role of
international law in holdingU.S.
government officials accountablein what many international
lawyers describe as a genocidein Gaza.
Welcome, Sarah Lee Whitson, tothe Race and Rights podcast.
(02:33):
Thank you for having me.
So on January 24th, 2025, yourorganization, Democracy in the
Arab World Now, also known asDAWN, submitted its
communication in response to theInternational Criminal Court
Prosecutors' November 17th, 2023call for parties to present to
(02:53):
his office information relevantto his office's ongoing probe
into violations of the RomeStatute in Palestine, including
the current war in Gaza.
Now, because some of ourlisteners are not lawyers, Can
you summarize the role of theInternational Criminal Court in
(03:15):
holding states accountable forinternational law and
specifically as it applies toIsrael and Hamas since October
2023?
SPEAKER_01 (03:25):
The International Criminal Court is a new court
and it is the only internationalcriminal court in the world.
In contrast with theInternational Court of Justice,
the International Criminal Courtis not a court for states or
governments.
It only prosecutes individuals.
These individuals may begovernment officials.
There's, in fact, no immunityfor hitting sitting heads of
(03:48):
state, but it may also includeordinary civilians,
nongovernmental people.
So it is a court thatspecifically hears cases of
violations of the Rome Statute,which include a host of crimes,
including war crimes, crimesagainst humanity, genocide,
apartheid, various other crimesagainst nationals, individuals
(04:11):
who've committed crimes.
crimes in a jurisdiction wherethe court has jurisdiction.
I don't know if we should callit a complaint or a
communication.
Or a communication.
It's not a complaint.
SPEAKER_00 (04:25):
In the communication, your ICC
registered lawyers and other warcrime experts detail a pattern
of deliberate and purposefuldecisions by U.S.
officials, specifically formerPresident Joe Biden, former
Secretary of State Blinken, andformer Secretary of Defense
(04:45):
Austin, Lloyd Austin, that theyengage in a pattern of
deliberate and purposefuldecisions to provide military,
political, and public support tofacilitate Israeli crimes in
Gaza, and that this supportincluded at least$17.9 billion
of weapons transfers,intelligence sharing, targeting
(05:06):
assistance, diplomaticprotection, and official
endorsement of Israeli crimes,despite knowledge about how such
support had and wouldsubstantially enable grave
abuses.
So in this 172-pagecommunication to the ICC
prosecutor, Karim Khan, Can youprovide the facts on the ground
(05:26):
in Gaza that support Don'scommunication or his position
that Israel is committing warcrimes and crimes against
humanity in Gaza?
SPEAKER_01 (05:35):
So the submission is a submission against these three
U.S.
officials.
for violating Article 25 of theRome Statute.
Now, Article 25 has twocomponents, alternative
components.
One is aiding and abetting warcrimes or other violations of
the Rome Statute, and another isfacilitating the commission of
(05:56):
crimes.
In order to find a violation ofeither of these provisions, you
need to have the actual act, theact of supporting, aiding,
abetting, facilitating crimes,and you have to have an intent
to facilitate the crimes.
What our submission documentsincludes the ways in which these
(06:16):
officials aided and abetted andfacilitated particular Israeli
crimes that the prosecutor hasalready charged Israeli
officials with.
And the court has alreadyindicted and issued arrest
warrants against these Israeliofficials for, which include the
crimes of murder, killing,starvation, deprivation of
(06:39):
humanitarian aid.
And in addition to those crimes,we also include evidence of how
these U.S.
officials have facilitatedgenocide, which is a charge that
the prosecutor has brought, butnot a charge for which these two
officials have yet beenindicted.
The arrest warrant can beexpanded at any time.
Additional people can be addedto the case.
(06:59):
So we focus on the particularcrimes of genocide, murder and
killing through indiscriminateand deliberate bombardment of
civilians, the crime ofstarvation in the deliberate
withholding of humanitarian aid,electricity, food, water, items
essential to the survival of thepopulation.
And we document the specificelements of assistance that
(07:24):
these officials provided,knowing that they would
facilitate these Israeli crimes.
SPEAKER_00 (07:29):
Now, just to clarify for some of our listeners who
aren't lawyers or aren'tinternational lawyers, there's
the International Criminal Courtand there's the International
Court of Justice.
It's been in the media quite abit over the past at least year
that South Africa has filed acomplaint with the International
Court of Justice alleging thatIsrael is committing genocide in
(07:53):
Gaza.
So can you explain for ournon-lawyer audiences the
difference between the ICC'srole vis-a-vis what's happening
in Gaza and the ICJ's role andthat relationship between the
two, if any?
SPEAKER_01 (08:06):
There's no relationship between the two
courts.
The International Court ofJustice is a court for state
litigation when a governmentsues another government.
And it hears a range ofdisputes, some of which have
nothing to do with human rightsor war crimes.
You know, they could be maritimedisputes.
They could be territorialboundary disputes.
(08:27):
They can even be commercialdisputes.
But they are also used to bringclaims for certain violations of
crimes where there's universaljurisdiction.
And the Convention AgainstGenocide is one of those crimes
where one state can sue, anotherstate can file a complaint
against another state forcommitting genocide.
So the case in South Africa, I'msorry, the case in the
(08:51):
International Court of Justicewas initially brought by South
Africa against Israel, but manyother states have now joined the
South African complaint.
And a number of states have alsoadded additional submissions and
amicus briefs in support.
And some states have filedopposition to the ICJ complaint
against Israel.
So in that case, which is stillpending, about a year ago,
(09:14):
actually over a year ago, theICJ did issue some provisional
orders against Israel, findingthat there was a plausible fact
presented that showed the crimeof genocide taking place, and
accordingly ordered Israel tostop blocking humanitarian aid,
to stop starving the people ofGaza.
(09:36):
In a second provisional order,it specifically ordered them not
to carry out military actions inRafah.
Now, Israel has ignored all ofthe orders of the International
Court of Justice.
The case is still pending.
Yesterday, South Africa provideda detailed annex.
I believe it's over 100 pageslong, expanding on the evidence
(09:57):
of Israeli intent to commitgenocide, which is a requirement
of the Genocide Convention.
That was actually filed a whileago, but it was only made public
yesterday.
Now, that's completely separatefrom the International Criminal
Courts case.
hearing about war crimes andviolations of the Rome Statute
in Palestine since 2014.
(10:19):
So when Palestine acceded to theRome Statute after it was
recognized as a state, it thenreferred the matter of crimes of
violations of the Rome Statutein Palestine to the
International Criminal Courtfollowing the Israeli war in
Gaza in 2014.
under the former prosecutorspent several years examining
(10:41):
whether or not this was a casethat the court would take on,
examining the merits of thecase, examining the
jurisdictional requirements ofthe case, confirming that there
was no alternative venue inwhich to hear these cases
because the ICC is a court oflast resort.
And then after completing thatexamination, decided to, in
(11:02):
fact, open an investigation intocrimes that have been committed
in Palo Palestine since 2014.
So this has been an ongoinginvestigation.
Karim Khan had jurisdiction andresponsibility for this case
well over the beginning of theGaza war, but in fact, did not
issue his indictments againstIsraeli officials and Hamas
(11:25):
officials until this latest Gazawar.
And it is for the conduct of thecrimes during this Gaza war that
the arrest warrants were issued.
There may be, and in fact, I'msure there will be additional
arrest warrants to come because,for example, settlements are a
war crime under the RomeStatute.
And we are still waiting for theprosecutor to issue arrest
(11:45):
warrants for the ongoing crimeof settlements in the West Bank,
for example.
So it is an open and ongoinginvestigation.
SPEAKER_00 (11:54):
Yeah, I think a lot of our listeners may not realize
how long this has been going on.
Of course, anyone who studiesThe experiences of Palestinians
in the West Bank and Gaza willappreciate the long record of
human rights violations thatthey have suffered by the hands
of the Israeli government,Israeli military, or Israeli
(12:14):
citizens and settlers.
Now, one more kind of follow-upquestion again for the
non-lawyers, which is, in yourcommunication, there is
discussion about war crimes andthere's discussions about crimes
against humanity.
What's the difference betweenthe two and why does it matter
(12:35):
for an ICC prosecution?
SPEAKER_01 (12:38):
So war crimes typically include crimes that
are committed during an armedconflict, whether it's an
international armed conflict ornon-international armed
conflict.
These war crimes are extensivelydefined in the Geneva
Conventions and other bodies oflaw, but they all fundamentally
boil down to the principle ofproportionality and the
(13:00):
principle of distinction, whichrequire a party to a conflict to
target only military objects, tonever target civilian objects,
and to, in all case, distinguishbetween military and civilian
objects in targeting and itsattacks.
Another war crime, for example,is a deprivation of items
(13:21):
essential to the survival of thecivilian population.
So, for example, the blockade onGaza that has been in place
since 2004, since, is it 2014?
Longer, I think, 2007, has beendramatically expanded in this
latest war to deprivePalestinians of food, water,
electricity.
(13:42):
medicine, all items that areessential to their survival.
Crimes against humanity arewidespread and systematic crimes
by a person or state.
that deprive them arbitrarily oflife.
It includes murder.
It includes a host of othercrimes.
They are not contingent on anarmed conflict taking place.
(14:03):
So, for example, Human RightsWatch has concluded that Egypt
is committing crimes againsthumanity in its widespread and
systematic use of torturethroughout Egyptian prisons.
Another crime against humanity,for example, can include gender
apartheid or genderdiscrimination, which doesn't
need a war to take place, but iswidespread and systematic when
(14:26):
it singles out for harm anddiscrimination, women, for
example.
So those are the realdistinctions between them.
A war crime can happen once, cankill just one person and still
be a war crime.
For example, a deliberatetargeting and murder of a
journalist is a war crime.
But crimes against humanity mustbe found to be systematic and
(14:48):
widespread.
SPEAKER_00 (14:50):
In the Communication that you sent, again, 172 pages,
which I would highly recommendthat listeners read on Dawn's
website.
Can you give us some of the mostegregious facts that support war
crimes, especially since October2023 in Gaza as committed by
(15:12):
Israel?
SPEAKER_01 (15:14):
Well, the war crimes include, number one, the
deliberate targeting ofcivilians.
There's extensive evidence thatshows that Israel has
deliberately targeted civilians.
This includes over 100journalists, medical aid
workers, doctors who have beenintentionally and deliberately
targeted civilians.
There's also extensive evidencethat Israel has deliberately
(15:36):
targeted children, includinginfants, with very close range
bullet attacks, bullet wounds totheir skulls.
And in fact, there's a newdocumentary out just this week
that details many, many cases ofdeliberate targeting of
children, including infants.
The second war crime that Ithink is the most prevalent is
indiscriminate attacks oncivilians.
(15:59):
So, for example, when youbombard an entire neighborhood,
there can be no argument thatthis was a narrowly tailored
military attack designed only tostrike at military targets.
So deliberate attacks oncivilians and discriminatory
attacks on civilians are two ofthe main categories of war
(16:21):
crimes.
The deprival of items essentialto the survival of the
population is another widespreadwar crime.
There has been also wastage andwanton and reckless destruction
of civilian property, wanton andwidespread destruction of
hospitals, of educationalfacilities, universities,
(16:43):
deliberate attacks on places ofworship, desecration of graves,
mutilation of corpses.
There's a long, long category ofwar crimes that Israel has been
responsible for since October 9.
To
SPEAKER_00 (16:58):
ensure that we don't hear the frequent criticisms
that simply by citing theIsraeli war crimes that we don't
care about Hamas's war crimes,Could you tell our listeners
what were Hamas's war crimes?
Well,
SPEAKER_01 (17:16):
the principal war crime for which the prosecutor
issued arrest warrants againstthree Hamas officials, all of
whom are now dead becausethey've been killed by Israel,
was the deliberate attack oncivilians on October 7.
Hamas not only struck atmilitary facilities, but also
carried out a murderous raid incivilian areas in kibbutzes,
(17:41):
where civilians were residingand known to be residing.
There's still incompleteinformation about the attack on
the music festival that wasunderway.
Hamas has denied carrying out anincursion at that music
festival, but certainly otherarmed group representatives or
some people did in fact carryout deliberate attacks on
civilians at this musicfestival.
(18:03):
I think October 7 stands out asthe most prominent example of
deliberate attacks on civilianscarried out by Hamas.
But over the years, of course,we've seen numerous
indiscriminate attacks withHamas launching rockets that are
not capable of being targeted,hitting effectively random areas
(18:24):
in Israel, and in fact, killingcivilians on a number of
occasions.
SPEAKER_00 (18:29):
So again, let's play the devil's advocate for a
minute.
Isn't what Israel has done sinceOctober 7th self-defense?
We hear that frequently from theIsraeli government and military
and their supporters in the U.S.
Well, does that claim withstandscrutiny?
Why or why not?
SPEAKER_01 (18:48):
So as a technical legal matter, I think it's not
clear that a state has a rightto so-called self-defense for
territory it occupies orcontrols, right?
If there is a riot, let's say,going on in Los Angeles, the
federal government can't startdropping bombs on Los Angeles
and claim it's self-defense.
(19:09):
This is a policing operation andhas to be handled as a policing
matter under the authority ofthe state.
So self-defense is typically, infact, exclusively a notion that
is used between states orbetween states and armed groups
outside of the territory thatthey control.
So when Hezbollah fires a Israelcan indeed counterattack
(19:33):
claiming self-defense.
With occupied territory, manylegal commentators have noted
that there is no valid,technically valid, legitimate
claim to self-defense.
But I think much moresignificantly and substantively,
self-defense is completelyirrelevant to the conduct of
war.
So whether or not a partydecides to go to war, whether or
(19:56):
not the decision to launch a waris legal, depends on basically
two things under internationallaw, whether it's done in
self-defense or whether it hasthe authorization of the UN
Security Council.
If a state comes under attack,it has a right recognized in the
UN Charter to carry out acounterattack in self-defense.
(20:16):
However, that has zero bearingon the manner in which these
strikes are carried out.
War crimes, crimes againsthumanity, these almost
exclusively pertain to theconduct of war.
So regardless of whether or nota strike is carried out in
self-defense, those strikes mustabide by the laws of war, which,
(20:38):
as I mentioned earlier,fundamentally rely on the
principles of distinction andproportionality.
You cannot deliberately targetcivilians, whether or not it's
in self-defense.
You cannot indiscriminatelyattack civilians, whether or not
it's in self-defense.
You cannot starve a civilianpopulation, deprive it of food,
water and electricity andmedicine, whether or not in
(21:01):
self-defense.
So the self-defense iscompletely irrelevant to a
finding of war crimes or crimesagainst humanity.
SPEAKER_00 (21:08):
Let's move to the role of the Biden
administration, because yourcommunication to the ICC
prosecutor is really focused onthe Biden administration and
specific officials, formerPresident Biden, former
Secretary of State AnthonyBlinken, and former Secretary of
(21:29):
Defense Lloyd Austin, aiding andabetting these war crimes that
you've just described and othersin your 172-page communication.
and you are effectively seekingsome accountability.
So what are the facts that showthat they've aided and abetted
these war crimes.
(21:49):
And you may also want to explainwhat aiding and abetting means
under international law for ourpurposes here.
SPEAKER_01 (21:56):
Yeah, so as I mentioned, there are two
provisions that pertain to thenotion of aiding and abetting as
popularly understood.
Article 25A defines as a crimeaiding and abetting the
commission of war crimes, whichbasically includes providing
material support, providingsupport that makes a significant
(22:16):
contribution to the crimes,knowing that that support will
facilitate aid and abet thecrimes, and then facilitating
the commission of crimes.
A small distinction, probablytoo much in the weeds for your
audience, but it means helping aparty commit crimes, paving the
way for them to commit crimes,knowing that the assistance
(22:40):
you're providing will facilitatethe commission of crimes.
What this requires, as Imentioned, is both the actual
provision of substantialmaterial support that in fact
does contribute to the crime.
So, for example, if I provide1,000 boxes of Bic pens to the
(23:01):
Israeli Defense Forces, there'sreally a difficult argument to
make that that contributionsubstantially contributes to the
crimes.
But when I provide bombs,2,000-pound bombs that have a
wide area radius effect that areincapable of being limited in
their harm ratio to a militaryobject by virtue of their size
(23:24):
and capacity, then that would beplausibly providing substantial
assistance that contributes,that enables the commission of
the crimes.
With respect to these U.S.
officials, what we document isthree sort of categories of
support that they've provided.
The most significant, of course,is the military support, the
(23:45):
$17.9 billion in weapons.
which we know from Israelistatements, from American
statements, Israel depended on,Israel needs in order to carry
out its crimes and continue itsunlawful war in Gaza.
Without this weaponry, Israelwould be significantly hampered
(24:06):
in its ability to commit thecrimes that it's been carrying
out for the past year and a halfin Gaza.
But in addition to the hardware,there is the intelligence
support and assistance.
The US military has assistedIsrael with intelligence
gathering and targeting support,which has also been used to
facilitate the commission ofcrimes.
(24:28):
One example, of course, thatjumps out is American
intelligence sharing thatprovided Israel with the
intelligence used to try to freesome hostages.
And in the course of thateffort, basically set fire to
refugee camps and burnedhundreds of civilians.
Without that intelligence,Israel would not have launched
(24:49):
this incursion, catastrophicincursion.
They have also actually providedactive combat operations and
support.
So the United States has carriedout numerous military attacks on
armed groups in Yemen, in Syria,in Iraq, who were deemed to be
(25:09):
threats to Israel, who were infact attempting to launch
missiles and strikes at Israel.
By helping Israel defend againstthese other parties to the
conflict, they also bolsteredIsrael's ability to expand and
continue its commission ofcrimes in Gaza.
So that's the bucket of militarysupport.
(25:30):
The other most significantcontribution was the political
support, in particular byordering the U.S.
ambassador to the United Nationsat the time, Linda
Thomas-Greenfield, to veto thefive Security Council
resolutions, they effectivelyprevented the UN Security
Council from stopping Israel'scrimes.
(25:52):
They intervened directly toprovide Israel with the
diplomatic protection it needed,the diplomatic cover it needed
to prevent a Security Councilresolution, which of course
could have included and couldstill include the use of
military force to stop Israel'scrimes.
For example, the UN SecurityCouncil authorized a military
(26:14):
incursion into Libya for theostensible purpose of stopping
Israeli crimes.
The UN Security Council couldnot do that here because of this
US veto.
And finally, the United StatesThese officials facilitated
Israeli crimes by teeing uppublic support for Israeli
crimes, justifying Israelicrimes, making false claims
(26:39):
about Hamas abuses, for example,to justify Israeli crimes,
resorting to arguments ofself-defense to justify Israeli
crimes.
And as I explained, these arenot defenses to crime.
Self-defense is not a defense tothe commission of these crimes.
But in doing so, they ensuredcontinued popular support,
(27:00):
public support for continuedU.S.
military assistance anddiplomatic protection for
Israel.
So these are the components ofthe actions that these U.S.
officials took that have aidedand abetted Israeli crimes.
SPEAKER_00 (27:15):
Again, I highly recommend that listeners read
that communication you sentbecause the facts are quite
extensive and those who havebeen paying attention to the
coverage of what's happening inGaza, the facts are clear that
there is mass suffering, death,starvation, ethnic cleansing,
(27:37):
and forced displacement, amongother human rights violations.
Now, the International CriminalCourt has jurisdiction over
states who are signatories tothe Rome Statute, and the United
States is not a signatory.
And I remember right after 9-11and during the so-called war on
(27:58):
terror, there had been someattempts to hold the U.S.
accountable through the ICC andformer President Bush was
adamant in declaring of hisintransigence and rejection of
their jurisdiction.
So knowing that, how can thisprocess work?
hold the U.S.
accountable.
And critics may argue this isfutile.
(28:20):
So what ultimately prompted Donto file this, knowing these
legal realities?
And what does Don hope toaccomplish in the long run by
filing this communication?
SPEAKER_01 (28:32):
Sure.
Well, let me just handle thejurisdiction question first.
So, yes, it's clear that theInternational Criminal Court has
jurisdiction over crimescommitted in the territory of
member states when it acceptsjurisdiction over territory
committed in the crime of amember state.
(28:52):
It doesn't always do so.
It has a variety of reasons forwhich it may refuse to exercise
jurisdiction, including, forexample, when there are
alternative venues to prosecutecrimes.
Because Palestine is a memberstate to the Rome Statute and
because the Rome Statuteaccepted jurisdiction when the
Palestine referred the case tothe International Criminal
(29:14):
Court.
Therefore, the ICC hasjurisdiction over any crimes
committed there by anyone in theworld, regardless of their
nationality and regardless ofwhether or not they're nationals
of a state that is a member ofthe International Criminal
Court.
So, for example, in Ukraine,because the ICC accepted
Ukraine's referral of thematter.
(29:36):
Because they have chosen toexercise jurisdiction over
crimes committed in Ukraine,they issued an arrest warrant
against President Putin, eventhough Russia is not a member
state to the Rome Statute.
Israel has attempted tochallenge the court's
jurisdiction by claimingPalestine is not really a state
with the capacity to refer acase to the court.
(29:59):
The court heard this.
The court ruled on this,rejecting Israel's argument.
Israel's argument was supportedby the United States and the
United Kingdom.
So the court has rejectedcomplaints against the exercise
of jurisdiction by the court inPalestine, including over humans
who are not citizens of memberstates of the court.
In terms of our goals Well, thisis a live and ongoing case, and
(30:22):
we very much hope that theprosecutor will issue arrest
warrants against these U.S.
officials for their crimes, forthe crimes that we've detailed
in our submission.
And when that happens, we verymuch hope that member states of
the ICC will exercise theirobligation to arrest these
officials should they ever showup in their countries.
(30:45):
So we expect that the ICC willissue more arrest warrants,
particularly against Israelis,but they may well include arrest
warrants against others, such asthe American officials whom
we've nominated for arrest.
This can take a long time.
And as we know, politics andpolitical realities can change
(31:05):
in a snap.
if anything should be clear inthe last few months, is that
alliances, favors, political upsand downs, they can change very,
very, very dramatically.
We already know that Israeliofficials who've been indicted,
namely Netanyahu and Gallant,cannot travel to numerous member
(31:26):
states in the world becausethose member states would arrest
them should they show up.
So this is not a hypotheticalthreat.
It's a real threat.
This is something that memberstates of the ICC are legally
obligated to do.
This is why we're seeingAmerica's attack on the
International Criminal Court,legal attack on the court.
This is why we're seeing Israeliattacks on the court, and not
(31:49):
just on the court, but on thecivil society groups, on the
lawyers, on the plaintiffs, onthose gathering evidence like
Dawn.
There are legal attacks againstthose who are collaborating with
the court, submittinginformation to the court,
because it is such a threat.
And in fact, the reason why thethreats against the court have
included direct threats to thelife of the prosecutor and other
(32:13):
threats against the court, theythemselves are crimes.
They're obstruction of justice.
And in fact, Convictions forobstruction of justice have been
more common, I believe, at theInternational Criminal Court
than the underlying war crimesthemselves.
So these are very serious andreal facts and evidence that
could in fact lead to arrestwarrants against these U.S.
(32:34):
officials.
It's not just sort of a distantideal or hope, but something
that could very well happenimminently.
I think the real question is,will the court survive?
Because what we're facing now isa court under threat, a court
under threat by the UnitedStates, a court under threat by
Israel, a court under threat byRussia.
(32:55):
And they have made clear thatthey would rather destroy the
court than see it prosecuteanyone.
Because if this court is goingto go after Israelis, some U.S.
officials think the court shouldbe destroyed.
On the other hand, the court'scredibility and legitimacy at
this point depends onprosecuting these Israelis or
(33:15):
other perceived allies of theUnited States.
Because if the court backs down,then it will lose all
credibility.
Even before these arrestwarrants against Israelis were
issued, The ICC was skating onthin ice.
A number of African stateswithdrew from the court.
A number of other African stateshave threatened to withdraw from
the court if it only continuesto prosecute Africans, Black
(33:39):
Africans, for crimes.
And I believe the onlysuccessful prosecutions the
court has had has in fact beenagainst Black Africans.
So if this court is really goingto be an international criminal
court, it cannot back down forpolitical pressure.
It cannot back down just becausethe world's superpower is
breathing down its neck.
(33:59):
It's in a very tough situation.
And so I don't know if the courtwill survive.
But if the court survives, thethreat against these U.S.
officials is real.
SPEAKER_00 (34:09):
So currently in the United States, and today is
March 28, 2025, we're living ina country that isn't just
attacking the InternationalCriminal Court, but is also
attacking its own U.S.
citizens.
who are engaging in politicalprotests, op-ed writing,
(34:29):
dissent, all sorts of nonviolentactivities protected by the
First Amendment in connectionwith defending the humanity of
Palestinians or criticizing thenumerous war crimes that you've
described today with us.
And as a result, they're beingfired from their jobs.
(34:52):
Universities are being bulliedinto disciplining, expelling
their own students, firing theirfaculty.
And of course, the internationalstudents are being literally
abducted by masked ICE agentsafter their international
student visa is arbitrarilyrevoked by Secretary of State
(35:16):
Marco Rubio.
And he just bragged that he hadrevoked over 300 international
student visas in the past fewdays without even notifying
those students in advance.
And so we now have been put onnotice that ICE is literally
hunting down at least 300international students.
And thus far, the vast majoritythat have been, again, abducted
(35:39):
in plain sight have been fromMuslim-majority countries, Iran,
Turkey, Palestinian.
And so the...
Mood in the U.S.
right now by those who seek tohold Israel accountable, the
U.S.
accountable, is quite dark.
It's pervasivelyanti-Palestinian and anti-Muslim
(36:01):
official government policies.
It's causing a lot of fear,which is exactly, I think, what
the Trump administration wants.
And so you've committed decadesof your legal career to human
rights.
And during that time, I'm surethat you have worked on and
witnessed numerous human rightslegal and advocacy campaigns.
And so during these difficulttimes when the U.S.
(36:23):
government is assaulting its owncitizens for defending human
rights, especially the humanrights of Palestinians, what
advice do you have for Americansand especially our college
students who are on the frontlines of the historic global
human rights movement?
What can they do?
learned from your experience,including in filing this
communication, but just over thelong run so that we can remain
(36:47):
optimistic?
SPEAKER_01 (36:49):
You know, this is a test.
This is a test that our countryis facing and our citizens are
facing.
I think the reality that we'reseeing is that our civil
society, our privateinstitutions, universities, law
firms, media, have sadly growncomplacent.
They have become cowardly andthey have been corrupted by the
(37:15):
financial influence of theirdonors and their funders.
And this is a time when our dutyas citizens is being tested.
We cannot take our democraticfreedoms for granted.
We cannot take the safety andour security of our citizens and
our constitutional protectionsfor granted.
(37:37):
We have a responsibility and aduty if we are patriots, if we
love our country, if we believein the freedoms enshrined in the
Constitution.
to stand up and fight for them.
Because if we don't, they willbe taken for us.
I think the worst thing we cando is to make it easy for them,
for the history books to showthat these terrible forces came
(37:59):
in to steal our freedom ofspeech, primarily but not
exclusively, to silencecriticism of a state thousands
of miles away, and we let themdo it.
We let them burn down ourconstitution.
We let them burn down ouruniversities and academic
freedom.
We let them infringe on theindependence of law firms and
(38:20):
their vital role in providingaggressive legal representation
to all sides of legal dispute.
And so I think that it is ourduty as citizens to stand up and
be counted, to stand up and beactively engaged, to stop taking
it for granted that our courtsare going to protect our
(38:41):
freedoms.
There are so many ways to getinvolved.
Just being aware is a good partof it.
And you can sign up for theRutgers center, which provides
vital information to thecommunity, to the student
community, to the globalcommunity who can now listen in
to these podcasts.
So many great organizationsfighting against this incursion
(39:04):
on our rights and our freedoms.
So many speaking out against themost heinous of crimes, which is
genocide underway in Gaza.
So I would say stand up and becounted.
Don't embarrass yourself forfuture generations that it was
under our watch It was under ourwatch that we became an
(39:24):
authoritarian regime that cankidnap people off the streets
because it doesn't like thingsthey've said.
I am so impressed by the studentcampus movement.
I am very confident thatstudents will continue to demand
their independence and freedom.
will continue to protest againstinjustices because this is the
long history of student protestmovements that go back hundreds
(39:48):
of years.
And we are seeing that no matterhow much you repress people,
it's going to be short-livedbecause that human instinct,
wanting freedom, wantingjustice, is always going to come
roaring back.
So I hope everyone goes and seesa fantastic new film, which
everyone should find inspiring,called The Encampments, about
the student protest movement,particularly at Columbia
(40:10):
University and UCLA, that reallyinspired university students,
students around the world tostart protesting.
Because ultimately, these peoplecan only get away with trampling
on our freedoms.
They can only get away withcommitting a genocide in Gaza if
we let them.
This is on us.
You know, for me personally,I've always said I will always
(40:33):
be in for the fight.
I will always resist for ourfreedom, for our rights, for a
sane U.S.
foreign policy.
And I'm not doing it Because,you know, I love the fight.
I'm doing it because I feel likeit's my duty and my
responsibility.
SPEAKER_00 (40:49):
Well, thank you so much, Sarah Lee Woodson, for
sharing your expertise.
We could have a much longerconversation to tap all of your
knowledge and experience andwisdom.
But we appreciate you speakingwith us today.
And I do hope that readers orlisteners will read that
(41:11):
communication and also visit thewebsite of Democracy for the
Arab World now and learn aboutthe many human rights campaigns
that it is leading.
So thank you again for joiningus.
SPEAKER_01 (41:25):
Thank you for having me.
SPEAKER_00 (41:33):
We hope you enjoyed today's episode of the Race and
Rights Podcast.
This podcast is hosted by theCenter for Security Race and
Rights housed at Rutgers LawSchool, also known as the
People's Electric Law School.
CSRR engages in research,education, and advocacy on
issues that adversely impact thecivil and human rights of
America's diverse Muslim, Arab,and South Asian communities.
(41:55):
We do so through an interfaith,cross-racial, and
interdisciplinary approach.
To hear additional episodes ofthe Race and Rights Podcast,
check out our pages on Spotify,Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music,
and everywhere else podcasts areavailable.
Now, for a deep dive on theseissues, visit our website at
csrr.ruggers.edu, where you canfind policy reports, teach-ins,
(42:18):
and news commentary by over 130faculty affiliates.
To watch our over 80 academicand public policy lectures,
subscribe to our YouTube channelat Rutgers Center for Security
And on social media, be sure tofollow us on Instagram at
Rutgers CSRR and on Twitter andFacebook at RUCSRR.
(42:40):
Finally, you can financiallysupport the Center for Security
Race and Rights by going to ourwebsite at csrr.rutgers.edu and
press the donate button.
And please give generously.
As always, be well and see younext time.
Thank you.
SPEAKER_00 (00:06):
Hello and welcome to the Race and Rights Podcast.
This is Sahar Aziz,Distinguished Professor at
Rutgers University Law Schooland author of the book, The
Racial Muslim, When RacismQuashes Religious Freedom.
I also serve as the ExecutiveDirector of the Rutgers Law
School Center for Security, Raceand Rights.
You can follow me on socialmedia at saharazizlaw and learn
(00:27):
more about my work atsaharazizlaw.com.
The Center for Security, Raceand Rights, also known as CSRR,
engages in research, educationThank you.
(01:06):
to the csrr.rutgers.edu websiteand press the donate button.
And please give generously.
In today's episode, I speak withSarah Lee Whitson, the executive
director of Democracy in theArab World Now, also known as
DAWN, about the human rightsorganization's formal request
with the International CriminalCourt to investigate former U.S.
(01:27):
officials President Joe Biden,Secretary of State Antony
Blinken, and Secretary ofDefense Lloyd Austin.
The request alleges that thesehigh-level U.S.
officials aided and abetted, aswell as intentionally
contributed to, Israeli warcrimes and crimes against
humanity in Gaza.
With the support ofICC-registered lawyers and other
war crimes experts, thesubmission details a pattern of
(01:50):
deliberate and purposefuldecisions by these officials to
provide military, political, andpublic support to facilitate
Israeli crimes in Gaza.
This support included at least$18 billion of weapons
transfers, intelligence sharing,targeting assistance, diplomatic
protection, and officialendorsement of Israeli crimes.
(02:11):
Despite knowledge of how suchsupport had and would
substantially enable graveabuses.
Let's hear what our guest has tosay about the role of
international law in holdingU.S.
government officials accountablein what many international
lawyers describe as a genocidein Gaza.
Welcome, Sarah Lee Whitson, tothe Race and Rights podcast.
(02:33):
Thank you for having me.
So on January 24th, 2025, yourorganization, Democracy in the
Arab World Now, also known asDAWN, submitted its
communication in response to theInternational Criminal Court
Prosecutors' November 17th, 2023call for parties to present to
(02:53):
his office information relevantto his office's ongoing probe
into violations of the RomeStatute in Palestine, including
the current war in Gaza.
Now, because some of ourlisteners are not lawyers, Can
you summarize the role of theInternational Criminal Court in
(03:15):
holding states accountable forinternational law and
specifically as it applies toIsrael and Hamas since October
2023?
SPEAKER_01 (03:25):
The International Criminal Court is a new court
and it is the only internationalcriminal court in the world.
In contrast with theInternational Court of Justice,
the International Criminal Courtis not a court for states or
governments.
It only prosecutes individuals.
These individuals may begovernment officials.
There's, in fact, no immunityfor hitting sitting heads of
(03:48):
state, but it may also includeordinary civilians,
nongovernmental people.
So it is a court thatspecifically hears cases of
violations of the Rome Statute,which include a host of crimes,
including war crimes, crimesagainst humanity, genocide,
apartheid, various other crimesagainst nationals, individuals
(04:11):
who've committed crimes.
crimes in a jurisdiction wherethe court has jurisdiction.
I don't know if we should callit a complaint or a
communication.
Or a communication.
It's not a complaint.
SPEAKER_00 (04:25):
In the communication, your ICC
registered lawyers and other warcrime experts detail a pattern
of deliberate and purposefuldecisions by U.S.
officials, specifically formerPresident Joe Biden, former
Secretary of State Blinken, andformer Secretary of Defense
(04:45):
Austin, Lloyd Austin, that theyengage in a pattern of
deliberate and purposefuldecisions to provide military,
political, and public support tofacilitate Israeli crimes in
Gaza, and that this supportincluded at least$17.9 billion
of weapons transfers,intelligence sharing, targeting
(05:06):
assistance, diplomaticprotection, and official
endorsement of Israeli crimes,despite knowledge about how such
support had and wouldsubstantially enable grave
abuses.
So in this 172-pagecommunication to the ICC
prosecutor, Karim Khan, Can youprovide the facts on the ground
(05:26):
in Gaza that support Don'scommunication or his position
that Israel is committing warcrimes and crimes against
humanity in Gaza?
SPEAKER_01 (05:35):
So the submission is a submission against these three
U.S.
officials.
for violating Article 25 of theRome Statute.
Now, Article 25 has twocomponents, alternative
components.
One is aiding and abetting warcrimes or other violations of
the Rome Statute, and another isfacilitating the commission of
(05:56):
crimes.
In order to find a violation ofeither of these provisions, you
need to have the actual act, theact of supporting, aiding,
abetting, facilitating crimes,and you have to have an intent
to facilitate the crimes.
What our submission documentsincludes the ways in which these
(06:16):
officials aided and abetted andfacilitated particular Israeli
crimes that the prosecutor hasalready charged Israeli
officials with.
And the court has alreadyindicted and issued arrest
warrants against these Israeliofficials for, which include the
crimes of murder, killing,starvation, deprivation of
(06:39):
humanitarian aid.
And in addition to those crimes,we also include evidence of how
these U.S.
officials have facilitatedgenocide, which is a charge that
the prosecutor has brought, butnot a charge for which these two
officials have yet beenindicted.
The arrest warrant can beexpanded at any time.
Additional people can be addedto the case.
(06:59):
So we focus on the particularcrimes of genocide, murder and
killing through indiscriminateand deliberate bombardment of
civilians, the crime ofstarvation in the deliberate
withholding of humanitarian aid,electricity, food, water, items
essential to the survival of thepopulation.
And we document the specificelements of assistance that
(07:24):
these officials provided,knowing that they would
facilitate these Israeli crimes.
SPEAKER_00 (07:29):
Now, just to clarify for some of our listeners who
aren't lawyers or aren'tinternational lawyers, there's
the International Criminal Courtand there's the International
Court of Justice.
It's been in the media quite abit over the past at least year
that South Africa has filed acomplaint with the International
Court of Justice alleging thatIsrael is committing genocide in
(07:53):
Gaza.
So can you explain for ournon-lawyer audiences the
difference between the ICC'srole vis-a-vis what's happening
in Gaza and the ICJ's role andthat relationship between the
two, if any?
SPEAKER_01 (08:06):
There's no relationship between the two
courts.
The International Court ofJustice is a court for state
litigation when a governmentsues another government.
And it hears a range ofdisputes, some of which have
nothing to do with human rightsor war crimes.
You know, they could be maritimedisputes.
They could be territorialboundary disputes.
(08:27):
They can even be commercialdisputes.
But they are also used to bringclaims for certain violations of
crimes where there's universaljurisdiction.
And the Convention AgainstGenocide is one of those crimes
where one state can sue, anotherstate can file a complaint
against another state forcommitting genocide.
So the case in South Africa, I'msorry, the case in the
(08:51):
International Court of Justicewas initially brought by South
Africa against Israel, but manyother states have now joined the
South African complaint.
And a number of states have alsoadded additional submissions and
amicus briefs in support.
And some states have filedopposition to the ICJ complaint
against Israel.
So in that case, which is stillpending, about a year ago,
(09:14):
actually over a year ago, theICJ did issue some provisional
orders against Israel, findingthat there was a plausible fact
presented that showed the crimeof genocide taking place, and
accordingly ordered Israel tostop blocking humanitarian aid,
to stop starving the people ofGaza.
(09:36):
In a second provisional order,it specifically ordered them not
to carry out military actions inRafah.
Now, Israel has ignored all ofthe orders of the International
Court of Justice.
The case is still pending.
Yesterday, South Africa provideda detailed annex.
I believe it's over 100 pageslong, expanding on the evidence
(09:57):
of Israeli intent to commitgenocide, which is a requirement
of the Genocide Convention.
That was actually filed a whileago, but it was only made public
yesterday.
Now, that's completely separatefrom the International Criminal
Courts case.
hearing about war crimes andviolations of the Rome Statute
in Palestine since 2014.
(10:19):
So when Palestine acceded to theRome Statute after it was
recognized as a state, it thenreferred the matter of crimes of
violations of the Rome Statutein Palestine to the
International Criminal Courtfollowing the Israeli war in
Gaza in 2014.
under the former prosecutorspent several years examining
(10:41):
whether or not this was a casethat the court would take on,
examining the merits of thecase, examining the
jurisdictional requirements ofthe case, confirming that there
was no alternative venue inwhich to hear these cases
because the ICC is a court oflast resort.
And then after completing thatexamination, decided to, in
(11:02):
fact, open an investigation intocrimes that have been committed
in Palo Palestine since 2014.
So this has been an ongoinginvestigation.
Karim Khan had jurisdiction andresponsibility for this case
well over the beginning of theGaza war, but in fact, did not
issue his indictments againstIsraeli officials and Hamas
(11:25):
officials until this latest Gazawar.
And it is for the conduct of thecrimes during this Gaza war that
the arrest warrants were issued.
There may be, and in fact, I'msure there will be additional
arrest warrants to come because,for example, settlements are a
war crime under the RomeStatute.
And we are still waiting for theprosecutor to issue arrest
(11:45):
warrants for the ongoing crimeof settlements in the West Bank,
for example.
So it is an open and ongoinginvestigation.
SPEAKER_00 (11:54):
Yeah, I think a lot of our listeners may not realize
how long this has been going on.
Of course, anyone who studiesThe experiences of Palestinians
in the West Bank and Gaza willappreciate the long record of
human rights violations thatthey have suffered by the hands
of the Israeli government,Israeli military, or Israeli
(12:14):
citizens and settlers.
Now, one more kind of follow-upquestion again for the
non-lawyers, which is, in yourcommunication, there is
discussion about war crimes andthere's discussions about crimes
against humanity.
What's the difference betweenthe two and why does it matter
(12:35):
for an ICC prosecution?
SPEAKER_01 (12:38):
So war crimes typically include crimes that
are committed during an armedconflict, whether it's an
international armed conflict ornon-international armed
conflict.
These war crimes are extensivelydefined in the Geneva
Conventions and other bodies oflaw, but they all fundamentally
boil down to the principle ofproportionality and the
(13:00):
principle of distinction, whichrequire a party to a conflict to
target only military objects, tonever target civilian objects,
and to, in all case, distinguishbetween military and civilian
objects in targeting and itsattacks.
Another war crime, for example,is a deprivation of items
(13:21):
essential to the survival of thecivilian population.
So, for example, the blockade onGaza that has been in place
since 2004, since, is it 2014?
Longer, I think, 2007, has beendramatically expanded in this
latest war to deprivePalestinians of food, water,
electricity.
(13:42):
medicine, all items that areessential to their survival.
Crimes against humanity arewidespread and systematic crimes
by a person or state.
that deprive them arbitrarily oflife.
It includes murder.
It includes a host of othercrimes.
They are not contingent on anarmed conflict taking place.
(14:03):
So, for example, Human RightsWatch has concluded that Egypt
is committing crimes againsthumanity in its widespread and
systematic use of torturethroughout Egyptian prisons.
Another crime against humanity,for example, can include gender
apartheid or genderdiscrimination, which doesn't
need a war to take place, but iswidespread and systematic when
(14:26):
it singles out for harm anddiscrimination, women, for
example.
So those are the realdistinctions between them.
A war crime can happen once, cankill just one person and still
be a war crime.
For example, a deliberatetargeting and murder of a
journalist is a war crime.
But crimes against humanity mustbe found to be systematic and
(14:48):
widespread.
SPEAKER_00 (14:50):
In the Communication that you sent, again, 172 pages,
which I would highly recommendthat listeners read on Dawn's
website.
Can you give us some of the mostegregious facts that support war
crimes, especially since October2023 in Gaza as committed by
(15:12):
Israel?
SPEAKER_01 (15:14):
Well, the war crimes include, number one, the
deliberate targeting ofcivilians.
There's extensive evidence thatshows that Israel has
deliberately targeted civilians.
This includes over 100journalists, medical aid
workers, doctors who have beenintentionally and deliberately
targeted civilians.
There's also extensive evidencethat Israel has deliberately
(15:36):
targeted children, includinginfants, with very close range
bullet attacks, bullet wounds totheir skulls.
And in fact, there's a newdocumentary out just this week
that details many, many cases ofdeliberate targeting of
children, including infants.
The second war crime that Ithink is the most prevalent is
indiscriminate attacks oncivilians.
(15:59):
So, for example, when youbombard an entire neighborhood,
there can be no argument thatthis was a narrowly tailored
military attack designed only tostrike at military targets.
So deliberate attacks oncivilians and discriminatory
attacks on civilians are two ofthe main categories of war
(16:21):
crimes.
The deprival of items essentialto the survival of the
population is another widespreadwar crime.
There has been also wastage andwanton and reckless destruction
of civilian property, wanton andwidespread destruction of
hospitals, of educationalfacilities, universities,
(16:43):
deliberate attacks on places ofworship, desecration of graves,
mutilation of corpses.
There's a long, long category ofwar crimes that Israel has been
responsible for since October 9.
To
SPEAKER_00 (16:58):
ensure that we don't hear the frequent criticisms
that simply by citing theIsraeli war crimes that we don't
care about Hamas's war crimes,Could you tell our listeners
what were Hamas's war crimes?
Well,
SPEAKER_01 (17:16):
the principal war crime for which the prosecutor
issued arrest warrants againstthree Hamas officials, all of
whom are now dead becausethey've been killed by Israel,
was the deliberate attack oncivilians on October 7.
Hamas not only struck atmilitary facilities, but also
carried out a murderous raid incivilian areas in kibbutzes,
(17:41):
where civilians were residingand known to be residing.
There's still incompleteinformation about the attack on
the music festival that wasunderway.
Hamas has denied carrying out anincursion at that music
festival, but certainly otherarmed group representatives or
some people did in fact carryout deliberate attacks on
civilians at this musicfestival.
(18:03):
I think October 7 stands out asthe most prominent example of
deliberate attacks on civilianscarried out by Hamas.
But over the years, of course,we've seen numerous
indiscriminate attacks withHamas launching rockets that are
not capable of being targeted,hitting effectively random areas
(18:24):
in Israel, and in fact, killingcivilians on a number of
occasions.
SPEAKER_00 (18:29):
So again, let's play the devil's advocate for a
minute.
Isn't what Israel has done sinceOctober 7th self-defense?
We hear that frequently from theIsraeli government and military
and their supporters in the U.S.
Well, does that claim withstandscrutiny?
Why or why not?
SPEAKER_01 (18:48):
So as a technical legal matter, I think it's not
clear that a state has a rightto so-called self-defense for
territory it occupies orcontrols, right?
If there is a riot, let's say,going on in Los Angeles, the
federal government can't startdropping bombs on Los Angeles
and claim it's self-defense.
(19:09):
This is a policing operation andhas to be handled as a policing
matter under the authority ofthe state.
So self-defense is typically, infact, exclusively a notion that
is used between states orbetween states and armed groups
outside of the territory thatthey control.
So when Hezbollah fires a Israelcan indeed counterattack
(19:33):
claiming self-defense.
With occupied territory, manylegal commentators have noted
that there is no valid,technically valid, legitimate
claim to self-defense.
But I think much moresignificantly and substantively,
self-defense is completelyirrelevant to the conduct of
war.
So whether or not a partydecides to go to war, whether or
(19:56):
not the decision to launch a waris legal, depends on basically
two things under internationallaw, whether it's done in
self-defense or whether it hasthe authorization of the UN
Security Council.
If a state comes under attack,it has a right recognized in the
UN Charter to carry out acounterattack in self-defense.
(20:16):
However, that has zero bearingon the manner in which these
strikes are carried out.
War crimes, crimes againsthumanity, these almost
exclusively pertain to theconduct of war.
So regardless of whether or nota strike is carried out in
self-defense, those strikes mustabide by the laws of war, which,
(20:38):
as I mentioned earlier,fundamentally rely on the
principles of distinction andproportionality.
You cannot deliberately targetcivilians, whether or not it's
in self-defense.
You cannot indiscriminatelyattack civilians, whether or not
it's in self-defense.
You cannot starve a civilianpopulation, deprive it of food,
water and electricity andmedicine, whether or not in
(21:01):
self-defense.
So the self-defense iscompletely irrelevant to a
finding of war crimes or crimesagainst humanity.
SPEAKER_00 (21:08):
Let's move to the role of the Biden
administration, because yourcommunication to the ICC
prosecutor is really focused onthe Biden administration and
specific officials, formerPresident Biden, former
Secretary of State AnthonyBlinken, and former Secretary of
(21:29):
Defense Lloyd Austin, aiding andabetting these war crimes that
you've just described and othersin your 172-page communication.
and you are effectively seekingsome accountability.
So what are the facts that showthat they've aided and abetted
these war crimes.
(21:49):
And you may also want to explainwhat aiding and abetting means
under international law for ourpurposes here.
SPEAKER_01 (21:56):
Yeah, so as I mentioned, there are two
provisions that pertain to thenotion of aiding and abetting as
popularly understood.
Article 25A defines as a crimeaiding and abetting the
commission of war crimes, whichbasically includes providing
material support, providingsupport that makes a significant
(22:16):
contribution to the crimes,knowing that that support will
facilitate aid and abet thecrimes, and then facilitating
the commission of crimes.
A small distinction, probablytoo much in the weeds for your
audience, but it means helping aparty commit crimes, paving the
way for them to commit crimes,knowing that the assistance
(22:40):
you're providing will facilitatethe commission of crimes.
What this requires, as Imentioned, is both the actual
provision of substantialmaterial support that in fact
does contribute to the crime.
So, for example, if I provide1,000 boxes of Bic pens to the
(23:01):
Israeli Defense Forces, there'sreally a difficult argument to
make that that contributionsubstantially contributes to the
crimes.
But when I provide bombs,2,000-pound bombs that have a
wide area radius effect that areincapable of being limited in
their harm ratio to a militaryobject by virtue of their size
(23:24):
and capacity, then that would beplausibly providing substantial
assistance that contributes,that enables the commission of
the crimes.
With respect to these U.S.
officials, what we document isthree sort of categories of
support that they've provided.
The most significant, of course,is the military support, the
(23:45):
$17.9 billion in weapons.
which we know from Israelistatements, from American
statements, Israel depended on,Israel needs in order to carry
out its crimes and continue itsunlawful war in Gaza.
Without this weaponry, Israelwould be significantly hampered
(24:06):
in its ability to commit thecrimes that it's been carrying
out for the past year and a halfin Gaza.
But in addition to the hardware,there is the intelligence
support and assistance.
The US military has assistedIsrael with intelligence
gathering and targeting support,which has also been used to
facilitate the commission ofcrimes.
(24:28):
One example, of course, thatjumps out is American
intelligence sharing thatprovided Israel with the
intelligence used to try to freesome hostages.
And in the course of thateffort, basically set fire to
refugee camps and burnedhundreds of civilians.
Without that intelligence,Israel would not have launched
(24:49):
this incursion, catastrophicincursion.
They have also actually providedactive combat operations and
support.
So the United States has carriedout numerous military attacks on
armed groups in Yemen, in Syria,in Iraq, who were deemed to be
(25:09):
threats to Israel, who were infact attempting to launch
missiles and strikes at Israel.
By helping Israel defend againstthese other parties to the
conflict, they also bolsteredIsrael's ability to expand and
continue its commission ofcrimes in Gaza.
So that's the bucket of militarysupport.
(25:30):
The other most significantcontribution was the political
support, in particular byordering the U.S.
ambassador to the United Nationsat the time, Linda
Thomas-Greenfield, to veto thefive Security Council
resolutions, they effectivelyprevented the UN Security
Council from stopping Israel'scrimes.
(25:52):
They intervened directly toprovide Israel with the
diplomatic protection it needed,the diplomatic cover it needed
to prevent a Security Councilresolution, which of course
could have included and couldstill include the use of
military force to stop Israel'scrimes.
For example, the UN SecurityCouncil authorized a military
(26:14):
incursion into Libya for theostensible purpose of stopping
Israeli crimes.
The UN Security Council couldnot do that here because of this
US veto.
And finally, the United StatesThese officials facilitated
Israeli crimes by teeing uppublic support for Israeli
crimes, justifying Israelicrimes, making false claims
(26:39):
about Hamas abuses, for example,to justify Israeli crimes,
resorting to arguments ofself-defense to justify Israeli
crimes.
And as I explained, these arenot defenses to crime.
Self-defense is not a defense tothe commission of these crimes.
But in doing so, they ensuredcontinued popular support,
(27:00):
public support for continuedU.S.
military assistance anddiplomatic protection for
Israel.
So these are the components ofthe actions that these U.S.
officials took that have aidedand abetted Israeli crimes.
SPEAKER_00 (27:15):
Again, I highly recommend that listeners read
that communication you sentbecause the facts are quite
extensive and those who havebeen paying attention to the
coverage of what's happening inGaza, the facts are clear that
there is mass suffering, death,starvation, ethnic cleansing,
(27:37):
and forced displacement, amongother human rights violations.
Now, the International CriminalCourt has jurisdiction over
states who are signatories tothe Rome Statute, and the United
States is not a signatory.
And I remember right after 9-11and during the so-called war on
(27:58):
terror, there had been someattempts to hold the U.S.
accountable through the ICC andformer President Bush was
adamant in declaring of hisintransigence and rejection of
their jurisdiction.
So knowing that, how can thisprocess work?
hold the U.S.
accountable.
And critics may argue this isfutile.
(28:20):
So what ultimately prompted Donto file this, knowing these
legal realities?
And what does Don hope toaccomplish in the long run by
filing this communication?
SPEAKER_01 (28:32):
Sure.
Well, let me just handle thejurisdiction question first.
So, yes, it's clear that theInternational Criminal Court has
jurisdiction over crimescommitted in the territory of
member states when it acceptsjurisdiction over territory
committed in the crime of amember state.
(28:52):
It doesn't always do so.
It has a variety of reasons forwhich it may refuse to exercise
jurisdiction, including, forexample, when there are
alternative venues to prosecutecrimes.
Because Palestine is a memberstate to the Rome Statute and
because the Rome Statuteaccepted jurisdiction when the
Palestine referred the case tothe International Criminal
(29:14):
Court.
Therefore, the ICC hasjurisdiction over any crimes
committed there by anyone in theworld, regardless of their
nationality and regardless ofwhether or not they're nationals
of a state that is a member ofthe International Criminal
Court.
So, for example, in Ukraine,because the ICC accepted
Ukraine's referral of thematter.
(29:36):
Because they have chosen toexercise jurisdiction over
crimes committed in Ukraine,they issued an arrest warrant
against President Putin, eventhough Russia is not a member
state to the Rome Statute.
Israel has attempted tochallenge the court's
jurisdiction by claimingPalestine is not really a state
with the capacity to refer acase to the court.
(29:59):
The court heard this.
The court ruled on this,rejecting Israel's argument.
Israel's argument was supportedby the United States and the
United Kingdom.
So the court has rejectedcomplaints against the exercise
of jurisdiction by the court inPalestine, including over humans
who are not citizens of memberstates of the court.
In terms of our goals Well, thisis a live and ongoing case, and
(30:22):
we very much hope that theprosecutor will issue arrest
warrants against these U.S.
officials for their crimes, forthe crimes that we've detailed
in our submission.
And when that happens, we verymuch hope that member states of
the ICC will exercise theirobligation to arrest these
officials should they ever showup in their countries.
(30:45):
So we expect that the ICC willissue more arrest warrants,
particularly against Israelis,but they may well include arrest
warrants against others, such asthe American officials whom
we've nominated for arrest.
This can take a long time.
And as we know, politics andpolitical realities can change
(31:05):
in a snap.
if anything should be clear inthe last few months, is that
alliances, favors, political upsand downs, they can change very,
very, very dramatically.
We already know that Israeliofficials who've been indicted,
namely Netanyahu and Gallant,cannot travel to numerous member
(31:26):
states in the world becausethose member states would arrest
them should they show up.
So this is not a hypotheticalthreat.
It's a real threat.
This is something that memberstates of the ICC are legally
obligated to do.
This is why we're seeingAmerica's attack on the
International Criminal Court,legal attack on the court.
This is why we're seeing Israeliattacks on the court, and not
(31:49):
just on the court, but on thecivil society groups, on the
lawyers, on the plaintiffs, onthose gathering evidence like
Dawn.
There are legal attacks againstthose who are collaborating with
the court, submittinginformation to the court,
because it is such a threat.
And in fact, the reason why thethreats against the court have
included direct threats to thelife of the prosecutor and other
(32:13):
threats against the court, theythemselves are crimes.
They're obstruction of justice.
And in fact, Convictions forobstruction of justice have been
more common, I believe, at theInternational Criminal Court
than the underlying war crimesthemselves.
So these are very serious andreal facts and evidence that
could in fact lead to arrestwarrants against these U.S.
(32:34):
officials.
It's not just sort of a distantideal or hope, but something
that could very well happenimminently.
I think the real question is,will the court survive?
Because what we're facing now isa court under threat, a court
under threat by the UnitedStates, a court under threat by
Israel, a court under threat byRussia.
(32:55):
And they have made clear thatthey would rather destroy the
court than see it prosecuteanyone.
Because if this court is goingto go after Israelis, some U.S.
officials think the court shouldbe destroyed.
On the other hand, the court'scredibility and legitimacy at
this point depends onprosecuting these Israelis or
(33:15):
other perceived allies of theUnited States.
Because if the court backs down,then it will lose all
credibility.
Even before these arrestwarrants against Israelis were
issued, The ICC was skating onthin ice.
A number of African stateswithdrew from the court.
A number of other African stateshave threatened to withdraw from
the court if it only continuesto prosecute Africans, Black
(33:39):
Africans, for crimes.
And I believe the onlysuccessful prosecutions the
court has had has in fact beenagainst Black Africans.
So if this court is really goingto be an international criminal
court, it cannot back down forpolitical pressure.
It cannot back down just becausethe world's superpower is
breathing down its neck.
(33:59):
It's in a very tough situation.
And so I don't know if the courtwill survive.
But if the court survives, thethreat against these U.S.
officials is real.
SPEAKER_00 (34:09):
So currently in the United States, and today is
March 28, 2025, we're living ina country that isn't just
attacking the InternationalCriminal Court, but is also
attacking its own U.S.
citizens.
who are engaging in politicalprotests, op-ed writing,
(34:29):
dissent, all sorts of nonviolentactivities protected by the
First Amendment in connectionwith defending the humanity of
Palestinians or criticizing thenumerous war crimes that you've
described today with us.
And as a result, they're beingfired from their jobs.
(34:52):
Universities are being bulliedinto disciplining, expelling
their own students, firing theirfaculty.
And of course, the internationalstudents are being literally
abducted by masked ICE agentsafter their international
student visa is arbitrarilyrevoked by Secretary of State
(35:16):
Marco Rubio.
And he just bragged that he hadrevoked over 300 international
student visas in the past fewdays without even notifying
those students in advance.
And so we now have been put onnotice that ICE is literally
hunting down at least 300international students.
And thus far, the vast majoritythat have been, again, abducted
(35:39):
in plain sight have been fromMuslim-majority countries, Iran,
Turkey, Palestinian.
And so the...
Mood in the U.S.
right now by those who seek tohold Israel accountable, the
U.S.
accountable, is quite dark.
It's pervasivelyanti-Palestinian and anti-Muslim
(36:01):
official government policies.
It's causing a lot of fear,which is exactly, I think, what
the Trump administration wants.
And so you've committed decadesof your legal career to human
rights.
And during that time, I'm surethat you have worked on and
witnessed numerous human rightslegal and advocacy campaigns.
And so during these difficulttimes when the U.S.
(36:23):
government is assaulting its owncitizens for defending human
rights, especially the humanrights of Palestinians, what
advice do you have for Americansand especially our college
students who are on the frontlines of the historic global
human rights movement?
What can they do?
learned from your experience,including in filing this
communication, but just over thelong run so that we can remain
(36:47):
optimistic?
SPEAKER_01 (36:49):
You know, this is a test.
This is a test that our countryis facing and our citizens are
facing.
I think the reality that we'reseeing is that our civil
society, our privateinstitutions, universities, law
firms, media, have sadly growncomplacent.
They have become cowardly andthey have been corrupted by the
(37:15):
financial influence of theirdonors and their funders.
And this is a time when our dutyas citizens is being tested.
We cannot take our democraticfreedoms for granted.
We cannot take the safety andour security of our citizens and
our constitutional protectionsfor granted.
(37:37):
We have a responsibility and aduty if we are patriots, if we
love our country, if we believein the freedoms enshrined in the
Constitution.
to stand up and fight for them.
Because if we don't, they willbe taken for us.
I think the worst thing we cando is to make it easy for them,
for the history books to showthat these terrible forces came
(37:59):
in to steal our freedom ofspeech, primarily but not
exclusively, to silencecriticism of a state thousands
of miles away, and we let themdo it.
We let them burn down ourconstitution.
We let them burn down ouruniversities and academic
freedom.
We let them infringe on theindependence of law firms and
(38:20):
their vital role in providingaggressive legal representation
to all sides of legal dispute.
And so I think that it is ourduty as citizens to stand up and
be counted, to stand up and beactively engaged, to stop taking
it for granted that our courtsare going to protect our
(38:41):
freedoms.
There are so many ways to getinvolved.
Just being aware is a good partof it.
And you can sign up for theRutgers center, which provides
vital information to thecommunity, to the student
community, to the globalcommunity who can now listen in
to these podcasts.
So many great organizationsfighting against this incursion
(39:04):
on our rights and our freedoms.
So many speaking out against themost heinous of crimes, which is
genocide underway in Gaza.
So I would say stand up and becounted.
Don't embarrass yourself forfuture generations that it was
under our watch It was under ourwatch that we became an
(39:24):
authoritarian regime that cankidnap people off the streets
because it doesn't like thingsthey've said.
I am so impressed by the studentcampus movement.
I am very confident thatstudents will continue to demand
their independence and freedom.
will continue to protest againstinjustices because this is the
long history of student protestmovements that go back hundreds
(39:48):
of years.
And we are seeing that no matterhow much you repress people,
it's going to be short-livedbecause that human instinct,
wanting freedom, wantingjustice, is always going to come
roaring back.
So I hope everyone goes and seesa fantastic new film, which
everyone should find inspiring,called The Encampments, about
the student protest movement,particularly at Columbia
(40:10):
University and UCLA, that reallyinspired university students,
students around the world tostart protesting.
Because ultimately, these peoplecan only get away with trampling
on our freedoms.
They can only get away withcommitting a genocide in Gaza if
we let them.
This is on us.
You know, for me personally,I've always said I will always
(40:33):
be in for the fight.
I will always resist for ourfreedom, for our rights, for a
sane U.S.
foreign policy.
And I'm not doing it Because,you know, I love the fight.
I'm doing it because I feel likeit's my duty and my
responsibility.
SPEAKER_00 (40:49):
Well, thank you so much, Sarah Lee Woodson, for
sharing your expertise.
We could have a much longerconversation to tap all of your
knowledge and experience andwisdom.
But we appreciate you speakingwith us today.
And I do hope that readers orlisteners will read that
(41:11):
communication and also visit thewebsite of Democracy for the
Arab World now and learn aboutthe many human rights campaigns
that it is leading.
So thank you again for joiningus.
SPEAKER_01 (41:25):
Thank you for having me.
SPEAKER_00 (41:33):
We hope you enjoyed today's episode of the Race and
Rights Podcast.
This podcast is hosted by theCenter for Security Race and
Rights housed at Rutgers LawSchool, also known as the
People's Electric Law School.
CSRR engages in research,education, and advocacy on
issues that adversely impact thecivil and human rights of
America's diverse Muslim, Arab,and South Asian communities.
(41:55):
We do so through an interfaith,cross-racial, and
interdisciplinary approach.
To hear additional episodes ofthe Race and Rights Podcast,
check out our pages on Spotify,Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music,
and everywhere else podcasts areavailable.
Now, for a deep dive on theseissues, visit our website at
csrr.ruggers.edu, where you canfind policy reports, teach-ins,
(42:18):
and news commentary by over 130faculty affiliates.
To watch our over 80 academicand public policy lectures,
subscribe to our YouTube channelat Rutgers Center for Security
And on social media, be sure tofollow us on Instagram at
Rutgers CSRR and on Twitter andFacebook at RUCSRR.
(42:40):
Finally, you can financiallysupport the Center for Security
Race and Rights by going to ourwebsite at csrr.rutgers.edu and
press the donate button.
And please give generously.
As always, be well and see younext time.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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.