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.
We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade the studio ad staff give you guys the best independent.
Coverage that is possible.
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.
Huge developments in the Red Sea. You guys will recall that the Huthis have been basically blocking traffic through the Red Sea. The US has formed this sort of very weak coalition and a lot of countries haven't wanted to be involved with it. But the UK is standing strong alongside of US, and so the US and British Naval Force is actually shot down twenty one drones and missiles fired by Yemen based hoo Thies on Tuesday towards the southern Red Sea. We have the scent calm announcement here.
We can put this up on the screen, so hooth the attack on international show shipping, they say. On January ninth, at approximately nine to fifteen pm local time, Iranian backted hoo Thie's launched a complex attack of Iranian designed one way attack UAV's, anti ship cruise missiles and an anti ship ballistic missile from Houthy controlled areas of Yemen into the southern Red Sea towards international shipping lanes where dozens
of merchant vessels were transitting. Eighteen OWA UAVs, two anti ship cruise missiles and one anti ship ballistic missile were shot down by a combined effort of FA eighteen's from USS to whit D Eisenhower, USS Gravely, USS Laboon, USS Mason, and the UK's HMS Diamond. This is the twenty sixth Hoothy attack on commercial shipping lanes in the Red Sea since November nineteenth. There were no injuries or damage reported.
On January three, fourteen countries, including the US, issued a joint statement stating the Houthis will bear the responsibility for the consequences should they continue to threaten lives, the global economy, or the free flow of commerce in the region's critical waterways. So that is a bit of a threat there at
the end. In terms of what the Huthis are saying, they said that in a statement that they attacked an American ship as part of a quote preliminary response to the US shooting down three of its ships on December thirty one. In that incident, we killed ten people. The Houthis carried out a joint military operation with a large number of ballistic and naval missiles and drones against the
US ship it accused of providing support to Israel. They go on to say the many armed forces continue to prevent Israeli ships or those heading to the ports of Occupied Palestine from navigating in the Arabian and Red Seas until the aggression stops in the siege of our steadfast brothers in the Gaza Strip is lifted. So just making it very clear, this is tied to what is happening in the Gaza Strip.
Yeah, and unfortunately, though the escalization ladder continues to climb, a lot of these Israeli ships are not actually transitting, you know, most of the cargo at this point, it seems in some ninety percent has been redirected around the
Horn of Africa. The reason that the UK is involved here is actually goes back to a lot of their historical dominance colonialism in the region and their historical pledge to protect some of this on top of the US Mission Navy specifically in order to protect the free flows of commerce.
The big problem here, and we.
Can go ahead and as we saw it with the British Defense Secretary, is that by telegraphing that we will be bombing yemen Y territory, now we are going right back to the original problem where look, I have no issue bombing who these if they're going to fire on a US flag ship. The problem just comes back to
will this actually stop the bombing? And what we've seen consistently through the Houthi campaign is that Saudi Arabia can drop, you know, the entire arsenal that the US supplied them with pretty sophisticated military, who these have no air power, but they were still capable of amassing all of these ballistic missiles which were you know, really threatened Saudi territory in the Saudi military for quite some time, and it would only more likely lead to some sort of escalation
in the waters in the Red Sea, which would only dramatically increase the insurance rates, the price of commerce. I mean, we're really stuck between a rock and a hard place because clearly the military.
Action is tied to what's happening in Gaza.
Now we say we're just not going to you know, we're not going to do anything about what's happening in Gaza. So now we're tied into this coalition. The real problem I thought with the coalition is that it's not just the US and the UK, which almost goes back to like some Iraq war thing. It's like France and all of these other countries which have just as much of an incentive in order to defend commerce on the high seas.
They don't want to join us in a military I mean, honestly, Crystal, we had more military support in our Anti Isis coalition than we do want to something like this is extraordinary because frankly, there's a way more at stake whenever it comes to this than whatever the hell was going on in Syria at the times. Honestly, from a military perspective, strategic this has been a disaster for US.
There is essentially no one in the region who has joined US. Bachering is the only regional ally that is publicly involved. That's number one. Number two. Some of the countries that originally said all right, will help you ount back down and did not want to be associated with this in any regard Number three, I will not be the first to point out that the US seems to be much more concerned about container shipping than they are about the Palestinian babies being massacred in the Gaza strip.
And number four, yes, they are in a between a rock and hard places. You put at Sager. It is
a position completely of their own making. So, as we covered previously in the week, there's all these leaks from the defense establishment and the intelligence establishment freaking out about the possibility of a regional war and warning that especially the escalation with the Huthis, but in particular the escalation in Lebanon, which we're going to talk about in just a moment, that this does not end in a good
place for the US period. And yet, nowhere in this coverage does it suggest the very obvious answer that all of these hostilities go away overnight if you have a ceasefire, and that the US has a lot of say in whether or not there is a ceasefire. We know when there was even a temple ceasefire, and this is a point that doctor Treet de Parsi has been making. We know that this is the case because these attacks slowed in some instances completely stopped during that period of the
temporary ceasefire. So while they're wing there, Oh my god, what do we do and how do we deal with this? And we don't have this coalition is in backing us, and maybe we've got to hit Yemen directly, they leave off the table the very obvious answer to avoiding a gigantic war that inevitably pulls US into it, which is to push Israel for a ceasefire using our immense leverage in the region. So I just mentioned we also have huge escalation. I mean, at this point you can't say, like, oh,
it might be a multiple front war. The Israelis themselves are saying they're at fighting a seven front war and taking action on six of those fronts. So they are warning these Raelis are now warning hospitals in Israel to brace for casualties as a result of the escalation between Israel and Hesbela and southern Lebanon. Let's take a listen to that.
Put this in its proper proportion. Israeli hospitals have and working with the idea of Home Front Command to drill these scenarios for years. So the protocol of drilling. It is not new and they have to be ready for that kind of scenario because at any time we could have entered into a full scale war situation with Kasabala.
The timing is of course relevant because we are facing continuous exchanges of fire with Kibella, and the scenario of this escalating into a much larger conflict is very much on the table.
It's possible.
So we don't know what the breaking point is, Okay, we have to be honest and say we don't know when that moment will come. When we're going from low intensity to high intensity, when it's you know, when it's dozens of rockets or drones to thousands Kisbala. Can you know, hit northern Israel with ten thousand rockets a day in a full scale war situation. It can hit central Israel with at least a thousand rockets a day in a
full scale war situation. We don't know when or if that moment will come, and it's absolutely the duty of hospitals and emergency responders and the idea of Home Front comme man to make sure that if it does come, that they're ready.
Net Nyiaho of course, has every incentive to expand this war, to keep the war going indefinitely, to try to have something that he can bring back to the Israeli people that he can call a quote unquote victory, especially as he comes under increasing pressure within his own coalition and also from the Israeli public. And we have one more, yet another warning from a prominent official. Put this up
on the screen. This is War Cabinet member Benny Gantz, who is saying the Lebanese government should think about whether they are Iran's front shield. If Heswilla continues, we will act in southern Lebanon as we act in the northern Gaza strip. This is not a threat to Lebanon. It
is a promise to the residents of the north. And you know, there's a lot of language to Sager that has made it very clear that one of the intentional goals of the action of the you know, assault on Gaza is not this quote unquote hunt for Hamas, but it's to show that they are so brutal to act as a deterrent to groups like Kazbola. And so that's why from the beginning you've had this language of like, hey, we could turn Beirut into Gaza City. We could copy
paste what we did in Gaza to Lebanon. That is part of the strategy here is to be as destructive and as horrifying as possible, so that you know, groups like Hezbola and the Lebanese people react and horror to the idea that that could be done to them as well.
Yeah, I mean, you know, if you look through history, it's not exactly a novel military strategy certainly has worked, I guess in the past. The problem that they have is that Hesbola is not hamas you know, the people, as he even lays out in there, got thousand rockets a day.
Rockets are the least of their problems.
They've got actual missiles that would have to deal with these are you know, missile defense systems and others. Already, what's happening in the Red Sea that we originally opened with crystal is a far more technologically advanced war than what's currently happening in Gaza Gazla is actually much more of a you know, older style of conflict. Yes, they have twenty first twenty first century technology, but only on one side in Hesbola, where that's not what we're talking
about at all. In some military analysts and others that I've looked at, including people who are pro Israel, people who are warning. Jonathan Schanzer we played on our Tuesday show he would like in the Hesbula military arsenal to that of a small European nation. So we need to understand that the parity of military capabilities and technology is so much higher. That was underscored on our Monday show when one hundred Idea of soldiers were wounded in a
single day, the vast majority of them by Hesbala. So that shows us that, you know, we can have no real hot war, but the mere anti tank missiles that they have and have been exchanging fire with the Idea have been enormously destructive. So the overall impact right now on global shipping, on the global situation and others is a level of immense charity, and it also shows us one of the warnings, you know, that there's.
Been a lot of triumphalism.
People have said, oh see, you know, nothing is emerged into a full blown war. We are only three months removed from October seventh, and we're just not that far, frankly into this conflict. Part of the reason why I've we're so critical I guess in the beginning is because it was so clear I would say October what twentieth or so on from the ground invasion. I'm like, okay, you have just now committed the same mistakes as Iraq. It took us nine months to a year for us
to reap the reward of our invasion. You know, it took a long time before we really start to see the massive strategic follow I would.
Honestly argue that most of what we're seeing today.
Is continuing of that, and that's twenty years or so after they're removed. So when we think about, you know, what the timescale is here and what they have opened themselves up to, this is just the you know, the beginning of the beginning. We really have no idea what
the diplomatic situation, the military situation is. So I think it is a very very dangerous moment here for the United States, specifically with regard to the global shipping standard, because what we can see there is that that has the most potential to massively change and impact the overall US economy. And look, let's I mean, you said, you know,
care more about shipping. I mean, to be honest, we should care more about shipping, because that's what's going to affect us directly in our lives, that would actually massively impact the overall US economy, the glow Mobal situation, And that's what makes people care. That's what makes people be like, hey, what is going on here? Why can't I get extra y or z? It seems from the grocery store.
Letting people care about the images of horror that they see coming out above Palestine. It's about what actually funded by our taxpayer dollars. And if you don't care about that, you might care about the fact that you are radicalizing millions of people to absolutely hate the United States of America because of these thousand pound bombs that.
Are being dropped on But these are not concepts which directly affect us in the moment.
What I'm saying is that you know, in generally it does well.
There are lots of people who are very affected by it, but it's not the.
Vast majority of the American public, all right, So the vast majority of the American public is definitely going to carry if the majority.
Of the American public wants the cease fire, but not exactly this reason, because they don't want to be party to atrocities.
There are things that I want. Then there are also the things that of the there are one hundred things that I want, there's maybe one that I'm going to act the most on right of that one. That's how most people think in terms of priorities. There are a lot of things on your priority list. Yes, majority of Americans want to sease fire. I don't disagree with you at all. But if you were to look, let's say, at pollium, what is most important to you, it's not even going to be what I don't know.
I don't If you ask people, do you care more about the babies who are being bombed in the Gaza strip or shipping lanes in the Red Sea right now? What do you think they're going to want?
I would flip it and I'd say, do you care more about what you're paying, you know, at the grocery store for oil and for that other thing, or for whatever's going on in a third world conflict which doesn't affect you.
I would absolutely say number one. I don't think I'm alone in that. I mean, and I think that bears out the number of.
People who have said that foreign affairs is their top priority in this coming election is effectively unprecedented right now because of the concern of what's being done in the Gaza Strip.
Yeah, but it's not Again, the economy is still going to be number one. I mean, I'm just all to what is actually impactful.
If you actually, if your number one concern is the frickin' shipping lanes, then there's a very clear answer here that dovetails alongside the concern over the babies who are being massacred in the Gaza Strip, and that's a ceasefire, and
that's left out of our government's calculation. You know, there was reporting that people in the Biden ministry like they don't even try to make this case to Joe Biden because he's basically so obstinately against it, period, end of story, that he's willing to risk a massive war in order
to unconditionally support Israel. It's left out of the media context when these articles are written about like, oh my god, they don't know what to do and this is so bad and the military is really concerned about what's going to happen. That context is left out completely. The Hoothi's have put on statement saying listen, we're upholding our part of the Genocide Convention and our obligation to not only not participate in genocide, which of the US is doing
right now, but to try to prevent it. So that's the big picture here that I don't want to get lost, is that all of these various concerns, which are all important, I don't want to diminish the costs that could escalate as a result of the Hoothy's actions here, All of these various concerns are solved by having a ceasefire in the Gaza.
Stress.
No, I don't think I actually don't disagree with anything that you said at all. I'm more talking about in terms of how it would impact overall US politics, and so I don't disagree in terms of our obfiscation of the way that we think and talk about the conflict and about our overall leverage of Israel.
Actually I'm totally in agreement, you know.
If anything, what we have signed ourselves up for is both unconditional support for Israel and unconditional bearing of all of the costs, which is what drives me the most insane about the entire US relationship with Israeli, a pittily little country out in the middle of nowhere that somehow all of US politics has to evolve around, including the US military, which is nuts, you know, when we think about it from.
A strategic position.
If anything, you could make a case that Ukraine matters, and I don't even think that matters more than Israel. And I don't even think Ukraine matters all that much to overall US national security. So it's a difference in perspective, I think, the two ways that we're looking at it, But regardless, you generally arrive at the same conclusion, which is that the US is not impacting the situation in Israel enough, both to its own benefit. There are humanitarian
side effects to that as well. But the problem that I see right now is that we don't with Biden in particular, and a lot of the overall US establishments, they're so whole still committed that they have not even allowed themselves to look outside of whatever was, you know, exists within the overton window of pre October seventh. They're not updating their thinking and their language in this overall strategic situation. Frankly, you see the same, you know, in
terms of thinking about Ukraine. It's like everybody thinks it's like nineteen seventy two in the middle of the Cold Wars, Like, no, we're living in a totally different global environment. And I think, you know, post October seventh, this is something that we're probably about to get to with the genocide trial happening right now at the ICJ, we need to really prepare ourselves for the fact that Israel is not the Israeli before.
Maybe they're okay with that, but I don't think a lot of people in that country have grappled with that.
And same with this country in terms of our relationship with Joe.
Biden still thinks it's like nineteen seventies, that is Reel Goldenmeyer's Prime Minister. And I mean, in some ways, as we've said before, and as Darryl Cooper always points out, like the right wingers like Netanyahu and Smotrich and Ben Gavie, they're the more honest narrators of what Israel actually is
and what the goals really are. So there is a difference obviously between Netanyahu and previous prime ministers who are actually interested in the Oslo piece process, etc. But a lot of the sort of bedrock direction of Israel has not really changed. It's just that the US political class, and especially Joe Biden, has constructed some fantasy Israel that has really never existed in his head and certainly does not exist today. So let's move on to the ICJ
hearings which started this morning. So let me explain a little bit of how this is going to work in a little bit of the context and backstory here. In fact, if we can put up the writer's tear sheet first here, guys, that give some of the contexts, and then I'll get to a little bit of playing some of the sound
from the hearing. So this is via Haretz Reuter's reports at South Africa and Israel exchanging allegations on the eve of hearings at the UN's Top Court, which will hear South Africa's claim that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza War. They're going to hold season on Thursday and Friday in a case brought in late December, accusing Israel failing to uphold its obligations under the nineteen
forty eight Genocide Convention. Okay, on the South African side, they are saying, as a people who once tasted the bitter fruits of dispossession, discrimination, racism and state sponsored violence. We are clear that we will stand on the right side of history. And Israeli government spokesperson responded that the State of Israel will appear before the ICJ to dispel South Africa's absurd blood libel as pretoria gives political and
legal cover to the Hamas rapist regime. There will be a panel of seventeen judges, including South Africa and Israel can both appoint one judge themselves. Those are called ad hoc justices, and each judge represents a different nation. Actually, the US judge is sort of leading the proceedings and a ruling on the provisional measures could be expected later
this month. So what they're arguing right now is not the merits of the case, trying to meet a legal standard of it is plausible that genocide is being committed here, that it's plausible, And South Africa is pushing for effectively an injunction where the ICJ would order Israel to cease all activities that are furthering the harm of the Palestinian people. Now, Israel is a signatory to the Genocide Convention. The US as a signatory to the Genocide Convention, and although our
complicity here won't be a center of these hearings. You know, they're clear follow on ramifications for us since we are the ones supplying Israel with these bumps, so we are not an uninvolved party here. This morning you had South
Africa presenting their side of the case. I did a breakdown over the weekend of the eighty four page filing that they had submitted to the court giving their analysis of both the actions that are being taken that they say are consistent with violation of the Genocide Convention, as well as statements from various minister's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanya, who various defense ministers as well, and soldiers rank and file soldiers on the ground that they say demonstrate genocidal
intent as well. So that's sort of the backstory here. This morning we got to hear South Africa's case that they are making for this injunction. Let's take a listen to a little bit of that.
In the first three weeks alone following seven October, Israel deployed six thousand bombs per week at least two hundred times. It has deployed two thousand pound bombs in southern areas of Palestine, designated as safe. These bombs have also decimated the North, including refugee camps.
Two thousand pound bombs are some of the biggest and most destructive bombs available. They are dropped by lethal fighter jets that I used to strike targets on the ground, by one of the world's most resourced armies. Israel has killed and unparalleled and unprecedented number of civilians with the full knowledge of how many civilian lives each bomb will take.
So Saga actually watched these hearings this morning. They had a South Africa had a number of different individuals making the case. Israel make their case in defense of these allegations tomorrow, so I'll make sure to tune into that as well, so we can break that down for you too.
Many of the numbers, statistics, the facts about the percentage of the killings that are women and children, the amount of destruction, the imposition of a siege which has led to hunger, starvation conditions, and also the lack of medical supplies, the complete collapse of the healthcare system. We've covered a lot of this extensively on the show, so you'll be familiar with a lot of the arguments that are laid out here. They also spent quite a bit of time.
I'm talking about the various statements that, as I mentioned before, they claim establish intent. They spent in particular a lot of time on comments that we played at the beginning of the war when Netnahu himself compared the Palestinians to Amelech, biblical foes of Israel, who they are charged with destroying in their entirety, including the camel, including the oxen, including
the suckling, et cetera, et cetera. And then they showed how soldiers on the ground took these comments seriously, and we are told that part of Israel's defense will be all these comments. People are just popping off. They don't really mean it, you know, this is just populous rhetoric that doesn't really mean. They don't really mean what they're saying.
And yet they showed soldiers who are on the ground repeating the words of net Yahoo and then using that justification to enact and celebrate war crimes that they're committing they're on the ground. So I thought that connection was sort of novel in some thing, that a case that I hadn't seen fully flushed down before.
Yeah, I mean, when I was reading through. So the Article two of the Convention. I know you went through this, but the Article two parts C is deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in.
Whole or in part.
The biggest problem they have is actually a lot of this is really fascinating to think because so many turning points happened from October seven prior to the actual invasion and the implication in the implication of putting on that siege of all of Gaza and eventually then bargaining about right of return for people and exchange for hostages. That seems to me like the biggest problem that they're going
to have. We should also, though, be honest here in terms of what the ICJ and all that implication is. They have no enforcement mechanism. So this is the bigger problem with the entire United Nations. It's like I was reading that in two thousand and four, the ICJ said that the offence between Gaza and Israel needs to be taken down.
Okay, well it's still up. Nobody can do anything about that.
To a certain extent, you know, the UN and international law and all that other stuff is fake because it all comes down to the enforcement. But on another extent, in the rules based technical international order, at least allegedly, what matters more is becoming a pariah state and losing your overall trading relationships.
And this is something you and I were talking about a little bit before.
But if you do look at the largest top fifteen trade partners of Israel, number one is the United States, but number two is Germany, Number two, number five or whatever is France. Huge number of G seven nations in there, and the rest of the G seven, they're very much more likely to take something like this seriously, specifically because if you think about it, the European Union and many of these other European countries are much more subject to
respecting multilateralism international institutions than the US is. So they may not lose their number one, but if they, let's say, have a forty percent reduction in trade or maybe thirty percent or whatever, it's still devastating to the overall economy. Not to mention visa rights. You know, Israeli citizens are all over the world. I mean, what if they're not able to travel, freedom of you know, moving about and all that's massive implications. You know, it's an underrated part
of being an Americans. You can mostly just land in whatever country you want. But if you're Israeli, I mean that could be a big problem for you.
Yeah, ask a Russian, you know what it's like to fly through is stun bolt. That's exactly I think.
That's the big the biggest problem of this. Well, you know, you can say whatever Yugoslavia, I mean, it took forever or even try and bring those people to justice, and their country didn't exist anymore. Or if we think about Rwanda or some of the other fallouts from there. Israel is a powerful nation there the sponsorship of the global superpower. They won't face any real like quote unquote actual consequences
even if they were to be found guilty. But in the soft power realm, I certainly think this could be.
A bread power.
My initial reaction when I saw South Africa's filing was like, Okay, that's nice, but it's not going to matter at all, right, because I mean, we see the US and our allies we operate with impunity. We make the rules, we ignore them when it's convenient, we try to weaponize them when
it's convenient, when it's against our adversaries. We see the way that this plays out, and nowhere is that more the case than with Israel, as you're pointing out, historically for many years at this point, what sort of changed my thinking about like, oh, this could actually, this could
have some bite was the Israeli reaction. Yeah, because they started putting out these sort of panicked missives, urgent cables to their embassies around the world, trying to get countries to come on board and issue these statements very similar to the statements our government was making about how this is meritless and it's antisemitic and et cetera, et cetera. So that showed me that they were concerned about it. The fact that they're even going to defend themselves shows
a measure of seriousness about it. And then you think about it, Okay, well, what do they have to lose? As you SAIDs Are, I mean, France has already said they're going to abide by whatever the ruling is here. So you know, we're kind of on an island in terms of our willingness to just flagrantly disregard what the ICJ rules. And even with us, you know, we have laws on the book, like the Laky act that are designed to to prevent US weapons from going to massacre civilians.
And so even though our State Department is saying like, oh, we're not going to look into whether there are any war crimes here, but we don't think there are, and we're just going to continue business as usual. Actually we're going to expedite these weapons shipments. It gives those who are dissenting voices a tool to use to try to compel and try to pressure the US governmento Biden himself and to force a different direction. So it gives US dissidents a tool to use. And you know, Israel is
a global nation. It is you know, very proud of its high tech sector. It is very reliant and very covetous of foreign direct investment. This has been an incredibly important part of building Israel into a truly, you know,
first world developed economy. And so for them to face the prospect of becoming like South Africa was in the waning days of apartheid, this sort of paria nation where no longer, this is what they said in Horatz and Anjaretes, Lit's no longer are people talking about us as occupiers. They're talking about us as genocide with the words ethnic cleensic with the words genocide, like this is a very different deal. So those things have apparently impressed the Israelis
as being serious and being significant. We can put up on the screen this actually list has changed the number of countries that are supporting South Africa's case here this number rose overnight, but as of yesterday you had Malaysia, Turkey, Jordan, Bolivia, Venezuela, Pakistan, Bangladesh, the Maldives, Namibia, Nicaragua. You had Brazil join overnight, and significantly you had the Arab League, which includes Saudi Arabia,
very noteworthy here joining on to this case. So I believe there are thirteen countries individually signing on to the case, and then you have the Arab League, and there's another Islamic Country Association that includes fifty seven seven different nations that have signed on as well, and apparently Saga. The reason they do it that way is to try to avoid the greatest opprobrium from the United States of America.
But think about Saudi. I mean this is Israel and Saudi have been the bedrock of our Middle Eastern policy forever, and obviously we have this tight knit relationship with the Saudis. We give them tons of money as well. They were this close to normalizing relations with Israel before October seventh, and now they're signing on to a case of genocide against Israel at the ICJ. That is a dramatic turn.
Of the two.
Most important ones are listed. Number one is actually Turkey. Turkey is one of their largest trading partners. Netanyahu and BBS to actually have a decent relationship, and they are a member of NATO.
That's why that one matters.
I would actually say that probably the most important Saudi Arabia and the Arab League, is going to be number two. The reason why is that currently the US plan for bringing an end to the war is to have Saudi Arabia normalize relations with Israel officially as a continuation of the Abraham Accords, and then also include some sort of
language about a two state solution. So if I mean, you can't really say that you're going to normalize relationships with somebody if you say they're also committing genocide.
So it's gonna be a little bit of a difficulty.
I think the problem demonstrates also some of the Gordian knots. I think that these people are in and to underscore that I also agree. And before we're about to play this, it's bbe basically walking back some of the things that have been said in Israeli society. Is something that encouraged to me when you were talking is it wouldn't Israel doesn't even have to become a pariah state. I think I have to be sensitive and the way I talk
about this spill, Let's be honest. The worst thing for Israel is to them to be a normal state.
What have they always been.
They've been the home of the Jews post the genocide by the Nazi regime, which has imbued them. I think let's all be honest with special status in the way that they taught we were talked about in the United States very very difficult, you know, conflation of saying anti Semitism is anti Zionism.
And one of the things that.
They often reach for is are like, well, our ancestors were killed by the Nazis, which has imbued them kind of with a special character where they've been ab to brush off criticism I think for some seventy part of their history.
I know this is very sensitive, but.
I think, you know, we have to be real about the way that they've been able to have that. You know, the imbue around them of the post Nazi era was such that it gave them almost like a moral standing.
If they're just elevated to what I've always wanted to treat Israel as, which is any other country, pluses and minuses of our relationship with anybody else, well, I think that's the biggest problem, is that if they're just bumped down from special status to normal status, well, that's actually a big change, you know, in their global position for a long time. And as you said, their economy, I mean, it's not America. They've got big problems. You know, they're
surrounded on all sides. They Yeah, high tech sector is great, but you've got to sell it to somebody, and you can sell it to America, but America's not the whole world. You've got to import a lot of oil you have, you know, obviously, or you've got surrounded by the Red Sea. They've had hostile partners for quite some time, but they roughly were able to reach some sort of middle ground. I think they threw a lot of that away and they don't really think about what the what is this
really said he looked like in twenty five years. I think that is a fundamentally different question post October seventh.
Yeah, which is a problem for them.
But let's play a little bit of what bb Netanyah, who said yesterday keep this in mind in English, tweeted out by the Israel account. Clearly this is targeted to America and to the world.
Here's what he had to say.
I would to make a few points absolutely clear. Israel has no intention of permanently occupying Gaza or displacing its civilian population. Israel is fighting Hamas terrorists, not the Palestinian population, and we are doing so in full compliance with international law. The IDEF is doing its utmost to minimize civilian casualties, while Hamas is doing its utmost to maximize them by
using Palestinian civilians as human shields. The IDEAF urges Palestinian civilians to leave war zones by disseminating leaflets, making phone calls, providing safe passage corridors, while Hamas prevents Palestinians from leaving at gunpoint and often with gun fire. Our goal is to rid Gazza, Ramas service and free hour hostages. Once this is achieved, guys, it can be demilitarized and deradicalized, thereby creating a possibility for a better future for Israel and Palestinians alike.
Pretty shocking actually to hear that in English. I mean, it's actually hasn't said that in a long time. We went back and looked, and I don't think it's a coincidence necessarily, crystal that it does come the day before the beginning of these genocide proceedings. But I also think a huge part of this is American domestic politics. Is
that Biden apparently behind the scenes. What I was reading yesterday is that Blinken went there and Jake Sullivan and others with a message to Ben Gavie and others like you guys got to cut this out. Like if you guys keep saying this stuff, and especially putting out these tweets and all that screwing us in English, what are we supposed to do? I mean, you're causing big problems for us back in America because everybody knows how to
use Google Translate and everybody can read. So this was a message effectively, what is he He's I wouldn't say he's disavowing per se, because he's the master of saying things in English and saying very different things in Hebrew. But it's different. It hasn't said it before. It hasn't really been something that he said since around October fifteenth, And the reason why is because he has such immense
pressure from his right flank. Ironically, this type of statement, which probably is better off for Israel in the long run in terms of their international standing, makes his domestic political situation.
Much more precarious.
Yeah.
I don't know though, if Ben Giverer and if these others or Smotrich would be willing to force him out specifically for them disavowing their stated desire to reoccupy and settle Gaza.
Yeah, it's very hard to say. We don't know what he's telling them. The Migapines like Wilsen, I guys, I gotta say this. I mean, he famously was caught on a hot Michael while ago like I know how to
handle the Americans, don't worry about it. So in contrast to these statements, we have a wrath of reporting about how he wants to quote thin out the population of Gaza, about how the preferred outcome is to push them out into the Sinai desert about how they want to pressure the US to leverage our aid dollars to regional countries to pressure them into accepting refugees. We have reporting that they have been in active talks with the government of
Congo about accepting refugees. So the reporting that exists, and the statements not just of Smotrich and Ben Gevie, but other Lakud party members, other ministers in his own government are directly at odds with these comments. So I would not take them all that seriously in terms of their content.
I think the timing of them that you're pointing to sober is what's so significant here, Both that you had the US political class so humiliated and embarrassed by the fact that Ben Gaverin's Motrich were just so brazen in what they're saying and repeatedly saying and making incredibly clear that ethnic cleansing is their goal, that they even felt the need to put out this statement of like, listen, we don't support that, but also that's not the stated
you know, that's not the policy of the Israeli government. Well, there was no evidence that that wasn't the policy of the Israeli government. So perhaps the Israelis were pressured by Blincoln or Biden, who actually hasn't talked to Netniahuo apparently in twenty days, but by blinking and others to put out some sort of ass covering statement. And then I do think the fact that this comes the day before
the ICJ trial commences is no accident. I mean, this is almost like cramming for the test the night before. And you saw some other comments like this coming out from Israeli government officials. Us we're crimes, of course not of course, we're not at war with the Palestine and civilians. Very different from the seed of Amelek. These are human
animals and they'll be treated as such. This we want knock the twenty twenty three very different from the sort of comments that we have heard throughout this conflict, which again I think shows that while the ICJ doesn't have any enforcement mechanism, apparently Israel is at least somewhat concerned with what they may rule in this case, what might happen here, Because as much as we would love to imagine that this court is just going to look at the case rule on the merits, we all know, just
like in American context, politics reign supreme, and that's why the big Israeli push prior to this hearing was to pressure countries around the world. And so you know, there's we wanted to present you with both a counter argument that you know, the ICJ will probably find that Israel is not plausibly committing genocide and will rule against South Africa, and also an argument that no, we actually think on the merits they are going to side with South Africa
in this case. Let's see which one of these do we have first? Is that Norm we've got up first here? Yes, Norm Finkelstein, who we've of course had on the show multiple times, who is you know, life like his entire adult life has been spent devoted to this cause. In understanding the nuances of it, he is actually very pessimistic that the ICJ is going to side with South Africa because of the politics I was just alluding to. Let's take a listen to a bit of that.
So on the merits, I would say, they make a plausible case, but these things have never decide by the merits, decide by the law. They're decided by politics. They can't get around it. And so what do you have now? The ICJ consists of fifteen judges. The fifteen judges comprise the Security Council and ten other states. So Russia, China, the US, the UK, and France, okay, the per five permanent members. They have representatives on the ICJ. So you think yourself, oh great, okay, we lose with the US,
for sure, we lose with the UK for sure. France is a question mark given the statements it's been making about what's going on in gods, I would call it the question mark. And then we go, oh great, we have one question mark than we have Russia and China. And you think, okay, we have Russia and China our side. Well, Russia is now being challenged. Are accused of genocide in Ukraine, and that's a pending case in the ICC, the International
Criminal Court. So do they want to open up the Pandora's box of that genocide convention which might backfire and be used against them? Very unlikely. China, well, as everybody knows, China is being accused of genocide against Ugars. So do they want to open up the Pandora's box of the genocide Convention and it's used against them? I would say very unlikely. So right now, we have from one of five, which is Friends maybe maybe then Germany's on this year.
They vote for it. They they were then Israel on it.
They were for the gender shite.
So he's doing the mout there and saying based on the politics.
I mean, I think he's right, doesn't look great.
Every single thing he laid out, especially with Russia and China and the contravening interest as to why both don't want to open yeah thing up.
I think he's startingly.
I mean, the only question on that one is, you know, they're not afraid of being the impocritsy either, in plenty of in plenty of instances. So do they see this more as a way to thumb their nose at the US, poke US in the eye?
You know?
Do they want to posture like, oh, look, they've you know, the US has dropped the ball on being the arbiters of international law and standing up for humanitarian rights. So we're picking up the ball.
We're the real.
Beacons of humanitarianism in the world. I think that's possible. But I also think that norms analysis is very possible as well.
Certainly we have the counter case.
Yeah, so international law expert Francis Boyle. It played this on Counterpoints yesterday, but I wanted to highlight it as well. He's argued successfully at the ICJ multiple times in fact and specific on the Genocide Convention, so he is like probably the most expert person on this that you could possibly imagine, and he believes quite strongly that South Africa will win this order against Israel. Let's take a listen to bit of his analysis.
I was the first lawyer ever to win anything under the Genocide Convention from the International Court of Justice that goes back to nineteen twenty one. I single handedly won two World Court orders for the Republic of Bosnia Herzegovina against Yugoslavia to cease and desist from committing all acts
of genocide. And based on my careful review of all the documents so far as submitted by the Republic of South Africa, I believe South Africa will win an order against Israel to cease and desist from committing all acts of genocide against the Palestinians. And under Article one of the Genocide Convention, all contracting parties one hundred and fifty three states will then be obliged quote to prevent unquote
the genocide by Israel against the Palestinians. Second, when the World Court gives this cease and desist order against Israel, the Biden administration will stand condemned under Article three, paragraph E of the Genocide Convention that criminalizes complicity in genocide.
So he basically makes the case like listen. Based on my expert opinion and historic knowledge of the cases, I've argued, this is even more clear cut than the victors. He's victories he's been able to obtain. And Sagera, I think he points on something really important there which is worth underscoring. That is, you know, if there is an order issued here from the Court against Israel, that order isn't just
about what Israel has to do. It's also that all signatories of which we are actually a signatory here, must act to try to prevent the genocidal acts. And that's I guess the quote unquote enforcement mechanism. It's obviously dependent on those countries actually doing the thing that they're.
Supposed to do.
But that's why they're sort of broader implications here. I have no idea. Yeah, right, I am total novice in understanding the workings of the ICJ. I have no idea, just how nakedly political it is, what happens behind the scenes, you know what the precedents are. I really, you know, can only take the opinions of people I respect, like Francis Boyle and Norman Finkelstein. So there you go. Those are the cases on either side.
My cynic's heart is with norm In general, my betting on cynicism has worked out well for me in politics here everywhere. And I don't know, I don't see a world where anyone allows happen.
But hey, who that will know, we'll see totally wrong.
We will. We will see what happens. And just lasting on this. In terms of the timing, I mean, they're having hearings today, tomorrow, some hearings over the weekend, and then the expectation is that they will rule on this temporary injunction in the next couple of weeks. Then there will be, you know, an argument on the merits that will take multiple years, likely based on how this has played on in the past. But we actually should know in a couple of weeks what happens with this specific fase