Global News Podcast - Israel-Gaza: Are we witnessing war crimes?

Episode Date: June 4, 2025

In a special BBC debate, a panel of guests considers one of the most contentious questions of the last 20 months: Do the actions of Israel and Hamas since 7 October 2023 constitute war crimes?

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK. men lost their jobs. Join me, Tim Buell, as I ask whether the dismissals were all fair and whether they could provoke an insurgency. Listen now by searching for the documentary wherever you get your BBC podcasts. This is a special edition of the Global News Podcast from the BBC World Service. I'm Nick Miles and we're about to bring you a debate hosted by the BBC examining a deeply contentious issue regarding the Gaza conflict. The question we will consider with a panel of expert guests offering a wide range of views is this over the course of the last 20 months, starting with the

Hamas attacks on Israel in October of 2023, have we witnessed war crimes in Gaza and Israel? I'm going to hand you straight over now to my colleague, Anna Foster here at Broadcasting House in London. A week ago, the former Israeli Prime Minister,ud Olmert wrote an opinion piece for the liberal daily newspaper Haaretz. He described how he defended Israel's military campaign in Gaza to audiences around the world. But now, he said, his opinion had changed. Yes, he wrote, Israel is committing war crimes. The decision on whether someone is guilty of war crimes will always be made in a court, not in a radio studio. Words like genocide are a legal definition

of a specific crime, rather than an emotive description of events that upset us. The latter use – incorrect until a judge decides – is increasing. Normally, many decades pass before perpetrators are convicted of war crimes. Some die without ever going on trial. But although the passing of judgement takes time, it shouldn't negate a conversation about events in the moment when they happen. Israel is refusing to let international journalists into Gaza to report what's happening on the ground in real time. Local journalists do their best. But there's much that we're not seeing in the

way that we would with other conflicts. On October 7, 2023, Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups broke through the fence bordering Gaza and rampaged into southern Israel. They killed more than 1,200 people and injured many more. They burned homes to the ground and took hostages, some of whom were killed in captivity and some of whom remain in Gaza, held away from their loved ones for 606 days. In the hours that followed that seismic event, Israel declared a state of war with Hamas in Gaza. The Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated his aims to release the hostages, to keep Israel safe from future attacks, and to destroy Hamas.

To date, the reported number of people killed by Israeli attacks in Gaza stands at almost 55,000. Among them are Hamas' most senior leaders, the people who planned and carried out the deadly October 7 attacks. That total also includes large numbers of women and children. Back in March, Israel collapsed a ceasefire deal which it had agreed with Hamas. It then refused to allow any humanitarian aid into Gaza for more than two months. The IPC, the body which assesses famine, said the population of more than two million Palestinians was facing starvation. Several members of the Israeli government have spoken publicly about their goal of displacing them from Gaza altogether. Hamas is a prescribed terror organisation

in the UK, the US and the EU, with sanctions in place against both the group and its members. Israel is a member of the United Nations, a major non-NATO ally and a friend of Western nations who arm it and support its right to defend itself. The Geneva Convention was established after the Second World War to try to prevent atrocities like it from happening again. It details crimes such as murder, torture and taking hostages that should never be carried out, with times of conflict no exception. It also describes the war crimes of willfully causing great suffering, excessive incidental death or injury and deportation. Which returns us to where we began and those comments by the former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. After 20 months of this conflict, have we witnessed war crimes in Israel and Gaza?

And joining me to discuss this delicate but important question, a vital question, our Baroness Helena Kennedy Casey, a human rights lawyer and Labour member of the House of Lords and director of the International Bar Association Human Rights Institute. Last year, she served as an expert on a panel convened by the International Criminal Court to examine the situation in the state of Palestine, the findings of which led to the application for arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Hamas Military Commander Mohammed Daif. Lis Ducet is the BBC's chief international correspondent. She has been reporting from around the world for four decades, including from across the Middle East and extensively

from both Israel and Gaza. Michael Kleiner is president of the Supreme Court of the Israeli Likud Party. He first entered the Knesset in 1982 as a member of Likud, which is led by Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and he joins us this evening from Tel Aviv. Afif Safiyeh was born in Jerusalem and in the late 1980s was involved in the talks that led to the first official US-Palestinian dialogue. He later became the Palestinian head of mission in London, Washington and Moscow and wrote a book called The Peace Process from Breakthrough to Breakdown. And Daniel Levy grew up in the UK and holds joint British and Israeli citizenship. He was a member

of the Israeli delegation to the peace talks with the Palestinians in the 1990s under the governments of Yitzhak Rabin and Ehud Barak. He's also been an advisor in the Israeli Prime Minister's Office between 1999 and 2001 and is president of the US Middle East Project, a non-profit founded by the Council on Foreign Relations. Welcome to all of you, our panel this evening. I'm grateful to you all for being here. I wanted to start with you, Helena Kennedy, because if we're going to talk about war crimes, we need to understand war crimes. We need to know about the technical specifics of them. So tell us more. War crimes have been, if you like, the way in which war should be conducted, the rules around war have existed for a very long time. And Geneva Conventions have been in existence since certainly the end of the

19th century. But the Fourth Geneva Convention came into existence with the agreement of everyone and both Israel and Palestine have signed up to the four Geneva Conventions. And the fourth one was really responding to the Second World War and the full horrors of that. And the rules around it are that when you conduct a war, the protection of civilians should be a priority and that obviously there might be occasions when you want to target a military base or you have a military target in mind. And then you have to weigh up and balance the potential for losing civilian life but it has to be kept within that balance of what is

proportionate and you have to discriminate you cannot collectively punish. Now can an organization like Hamas commit a war crime? Most certainly it can because it was the governing body in Gaza at the time. But we also know that non-state actors, you know, jihadist groups and so on, can also be deemed to be committers of war crimes. Decisions have been made to that effect. And so we would have very little difficulty in coming to the conclusion that there were reasonable grounds to believe that terrible atrocity crimes, war crimes were committed on the 7th of October and thereafter by Hamas and the other groups who detained hostages and the way in which they detained them and what they put those

hostages through. But there are also concerns that I think have exercised international lawyers and jurists around the world about the conduct of the war. Was it disproportionate? Was it indiscriminate in who were being killed? And you've seen that 800 lawyers here in Britain signed a petition recently. I wasn't one of them, but I'm saying that basically they think that war crimes are being committed there. And I would certainly say that there are reasonable grounds, and this is the test, are there reasonable grounds to believe that persons are committing war crimes in the name of Israel? And you see, it's not all the people of Israel. It's

about those who are the leadership. Netanyahu, Gallant had warrants issued against them, and they were issued by a court and by judges in a court. And that's ultimately where decisions are made. On that point of, of evidence and about this being a legal process, least you said you see and hear and follow closely every day evidence of what is coming out. But it is enormously difficult as well in this particular conflict because international journalists are not able to enter Gaza and report from there at the moment. Yes, this is quite an unprecedented situation to deny journalists access to the war zone. Of course Israel is not the only one now. It's very difficult to get into Sudan.

It's very difficult to get into Afghanistan. There's lots of places around the world which have discovered the best way to control the media is to keep the media out. And the real paradox of this situation is never have we had so much information because we are seeing the war in real time. Israeli soldiers are putting videos on the internet. Some of that is going to be used as evidence in war crimes, tribunals, aid workers, doctors are having to play the world of journalists and speaking to the media. Never have we had so much information, but never have we had so much misinformation. The proverbial fog of war. Gaza is in ruin. It's a dangerous place. But this is our job as journalists is to

see with our own eyes. And 20 months on, we still haven't been in except for supervised embeds with the Israeli Defense Forces. I want to turn to Michael Kleiner and actually loop back to those comments that we were talking about right at the beginning of the debate. Powerful comments from Ehud Olmert, former Israeli Prime Minister. Michael Kleiner, he said Israel is committing war crimes. Is he right? No, he's wrong.

Israel is a victim. Hamas is the aggressor. You mentioned it in your opening statements, Anna. And one must remember that Teodormat was the Prime Minister of Israel. But I don't like to say it, but in this circumstance you must mention that he is a convicted felon. He was rejected by the Israeli society because he went to jail. And Israel is a democracy.

It seems to be the destination of many Israeli prime ministers. Mr. Netanyahu might have... You know, Israel is a democracy. And in Israel we have a very divided society and the opposition is very enthusiastic and the coalition is very enthusiastic, but we have to judge according to facts. Israel didn't start the war. It started by, as you mentioned, by Hamas.

If Hamas wouldn't have started this war, no Palestinian would have been injured. But Michael Kleiner, if I may, on that very specific point, and he says in the article that he wrote for Haaretz, he says that he didn't believe at the beginning of this particular war that Israel was committing war crimes, but he believes that now it's a disproportionate situation. Do you think he's wrong in that assessment? No, I believe that nothing has basically changed. Israel is actually doing more than what international law requires. I don't remember any army in the world's history that was warning a population that are going to be bombarded because of the basis of terror. And they are warning in advance in order to enable the uninvolved population to evacuate those areas with the risk that also terrorists will run away. So I guess this is done consistently.

Israel is doing anything in its ability not to harm people. We know the rules that Lord Kennedy mentioned before. That's why in every union, in every battalion, we have representative of the general advocate of the army, which are asked questions. And there were many military airstrikes that were aborted at the last moment military airstrikes that were aborted at the last moment when we got information that there is too much civilian population around. To tell you that never in the whole war no soldier committed crimes, I am sure that some did commit crimes which were not controlled, but this is

not the rule. If they will be proven guilty, they will be punished. We don't encourage it. What about the state withholding of aid? Because at the moment that is a particularly live topic because war crimes are broader than simply killing. Is Israel correct to withhold the aid as it's doing now? It's fantastic as it is doing now. It's fantastic as it is doing now. It's not doing now, it's doing the contrary. For the first time, we make sure with Israeli army that the population will get aid,

will get the food, will get five million meals were distributed for the last few days by this American fund. But for more than two months, Israel stopped aid from going into Gaza. Because we got in, because there was a big outrage when Hamas consistently refused the White-Corp proposals, one after the other. At any moment since the war started, when Hamas would have shown readiness to accept the compromises of the Americans or to release the hostages which they unlawfully continue. This is a continuing crime to keep those hostages in the terrible condition they keep them. The moment they would have shown readiness to release the hostages and to demilitarize Gaza,

the war would have stopped in a moment. Well, let's pick up on that point. Let's pick up on that point with the Fief Safiye. Now, you are not here to speak for Hamas, but on that point that Michael Kleiner makes of Hamas points holding up aid, the fact that they continue to hold the hostages, Hamas has agency to stop this conflict that it's not using. And I want us all to bear in mind that history did not start on the 7th of October. It started 77 years ago. And I believe that the UN Secretary General had the courage and the clarity of saying 7th of October did not happen in a vacuum. And let me tell you what was the non-vacuum. It was 17 years of total siege of Gaza, which was described as an open air prison.

So you justify… No, no, please, I did not interrupt you, so please don't interrupt me. You did, but never mind, I didn't interrupt you. So Gaza was considered to be an open air prison for the last 17 years. In the West Bank, where we witnessed a politicized, the strangulation of the Palestinian Authority, every day there were incursions in every city, village and refugee camps, demolition of houses, stealing of land, the elastic expansion of the settlements, the daily incursions in the mosque of Al-Aqsa.

And this is important context, but I would like to bring you back to that specific point, here and now, where Hamas are not allowing the aid through and where they continue to hold the hostages. And who said Hamas is not allowing? I don't represent Hamas. I know that you don't represent Hamas. My question was more about the agency of Hamas and let me tell you the formula that was adopted for the distribution of the little aid that is being distributed has been very controversial. It's done by American mercenaries, by the way, and it's becoming a death trap. In the last four days, 102 people were killed by Israeli soldiers.

By Hamas. It's a lie. By Hamas. It was proven. The 30 people that you said were killed by Israel were killed by Hamas. At this particular point, if I may, I'm going to bring in Lise Doucet, just to, and Daniel Livia, I will speak to you in just one second. Lise, I just want you to give us a little bit of context on that particular disagreement. It's important for our audience to be able to follow the points that we're making. And this is an important one because there is disagreement about what happened, Lise. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation started work on the 26th of May.

It says it has so far distributed seven million meals, but there is some dispute about what does seven million represent? The meals have to be cooked, there's no fuel. Are they actually feeding that many people? But putting that aside, ever since they started distributing, every distribution has been marked by chaos and also sadly violence. And every time there is these sorts of incidents, there are these war of words, both sides accusing the other of opening fire.

But let's be clear on what the facts are. The facts are that these distribution sites have been set up and there's only a few now compared to the 400 sites that the United Nations had been using for years in Gaza, on a family community-based basis. These new ones which have been set up is basically come and get the aid and it's basically first come first served. You can imagine thousands of people desperate for a piece of bread. Of course there's going to be chaos.

The Israeli forces say they did open fire. They say this was against suspects. But of course there is going to be chaos. Let me just give you one figure from the International Committee of the Red Cross. It set up a field hospital in Rafa a year ago. It said there were five mass casualty incidents in this last week. The United Nations is saying, why do we have a system of aid, which is distributing what they say is a teaspoon of aid, when there's already a system there? The GHS says, yes, we are trying to do it safely. We are trying to feed the people of Gaza. Those are great objectives. But the system, which is enforced by a military security agency run by a former CIA officer, they didn't need to put it in. But unfortunately, and we'll talk about this later, the accusation is, and the Israeli

officials have made it clear, most of all for our right-wing members, is part of a wider plan which is to push Gazans to the south. And as the finance minister said, hopefully they'll leave in despair. I do want to give Daniel Levy a chance to speak. The reason that we have two Israeli voices with us tonight is because there is a split in Israeli society. Not everybody in the country agrees with what is going on at the moment. What is your perspective, Daniel, on what you've been seeing and hearing?

The fundamental part of that fault line isn't about the treatment of Palestinians actually. It's about whether or not the Israelis being held are being prioritized and how Netanyahu runs the country. So that's a slightly different argument. But there is, it's to make that point that not everybody in Israel thinks we're the same as you would find anywhere else in the world. There's a spectrum of opinion. Sure. And it's not just the former imprisoned Prime Minister, Mr. Olmert, who has now acknowledged war crimes. You have some of the top Holocaust and Jewish history historians at the Hebrew University

who've come out and said not just that these are war crimes, but that this is a genocide, Amos Goldberg amongst them. You have the most prominent, perhaps genocide historian, a Jewel national American Israeli, Omar Baratov, at Brown University who has said very early on, I'm worried this might be genocide, but it isn't yet, but the intentionality is there. And he has now come out and said, yes, unfortunately, it's genocide. But if we're talking about war crimes, my slight surprise is that there's a question mark at the end of this debate, because of course war crimes are being committed, but those began prior to October 7th. That's why the International

Criminal Court was already investigating Israel's actions under its previous, threatened by the Israelis, Chief Prosecutor Fatou Ben Souta. So there were war crimes being investigated before October 7th, there were war crimes committed on October 7th. There have been a slew of war crimes committed subsequently. The Israelis are still being held, but many of the families of those still being held and many of those who were released are out protesting all the time because they don't believe that that is what Natanyahu is interested in, is getting them out. And so the commissioning of war crimes began very early. That's why South Africa went to the International Court of Justice in

December of 2023 already. And what did they show to the jurists at the International Court of Justice? They showed how Israel had self-incriminated itself. On day one, Israel's leaders said, we will collectively punish, cut all food, fuel, water, electricity. And that's why urgent provisional measures were issued by the International Court of Justice. What has happened subsequently, and it pains me to say this, I take no joy in this, what has happened subsequently is that Israel has gone on a genocidal direction partly because It has been treated even under the extremities of what it has done With impunity and therefore Netanyahu and the government and it's not just these two ministers whose names people have become familiar with Smotrich and

Ben-Gurvier He has said even when the hostages are out we will continue in Gaza. He has called for ethnic cleansing They have cattled Palestinians into ever smaller areas Even when the hostages are out, we will continue in Gaza. He has called for ethnic cleansing. They have kettled Palestinians into ever smaller areas. They have created these safe zones and then bombed the safe zones. They have created this Gaza humanitarian foundation, but it wasn't needed. They've never proven that Hamas took the goods. In fact, there's more proof that Israel worked with criminal gangs and thugs to create this chaos.

UNRWA, they've never proved the evidence against the UN delivery mechanism. In fact, the UN set up a commission headed by the former French Foreign Minister, Collonne. She came out with the finding that the evidence wasn't there. And now this aid, so-called aid distribution, which leads to killings every day, is a new layer of cruelty. And you know what? You want to find the bottom line? Mr. Nuttanyahu can go to The Hague

and he can answer the questions that the ICC have put on that arrest warrant. And if there's nothing to hide, let the media in. Now it's true, they've killed 180-plus journalists, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. Yes, we must mention, and I should have mentioned them, a record number of Palestinian journalists have been killed in this conflict,

and they have been our eyes and ears. Michael Klanow, I'd like you to respond to what Daniel Levy had to say there. Yes, I guess I'm here one against almost everyone else. So there are many, many, many things to comment. No, no, no, I'm a journalist and Helena Kennedy is a lawyer. Helena Kennedy is a lawyer. We're not Michael. And it is the truth. Hang on. You have your opinion.

You're entitled to your opinions. Even if I believe they're wrong. Michael Kleiner, on that... If you will let me, I will be able to say why your opinions are wrong. For example, the Palestinian colleague said that, or everybody said, nobody knows who is to blame for the killing of the Palestinians who come to get the food. So one must look according to logic.

Who is the interest that the people will come and get the food, the one who arranged it? Israel, which wrote the American Fund, so Israel has an interest to encourage the people to get those foods that they have to get. On the other hand, Hamas has a very strong interest to prevent it, to disturb it. Michael Kleiner, I would really like you... In order that they will be able to continue proprietary... I would really like you to respond to what Daniel Levy just had to say. What of it?

He said many things that all are wrong. 90% of them are wrong. So tell me what he said and I will comment too. Well, you heard what he had to say. You say that 90% of what he said, he said, he said, he said nonsense. Israel is the most moral army in the world. If somebody would have taken a snapshot of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, he would say, who are those crazy war criminals from there for mr. Truman that were killing those innocent Japanese babies that did no harm. one buys it anymore no one believes the idea that

this is a moral army it is incriminated itself by its own statements by its social media postings they warned the people before bombing give me one example in history that an army was warning the other side the other side from a bombing it's's more cruel. It's more cruel. Gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen, tell me, tell me, tell me an example. Michael Kleiner, please. What I'm really, really conscious of our listeners in all of this on what I and I realized that these are points of deep contention and there is a lot of emotion attached to them. But what I really want our listeners to take from this is light as well as heat. And Baroness Kennedy, this word which repeatedly comes up, not just in the conversation in the studio, it's come up a lot recently and that is the word genocide. So when we

talk about genocide, as I said right at the start, it is not a word to be used lightly, it is a legal definition. Yes and it's about the destruction of not just the whole of a people, but even of part of a people. And it should be used with great care because in legal terms, you have to prove intent. And that's rather difficult to prove that it was the intention of those conducting a war to actually eliminate a portion or a complete people. But you know it's become rather strange that we somehow seem to be saying well it's not a genocide but we accept it as crimes against humanity. I mean there are terrible allegations being made

about what has happened. Even if they don't amount to genocide, they amount to grievous crimes against humanity. That would be the argument, and it would have to be for a court to decide. But I'd want to just say one thing. When we all signed up to the genocide convention, We were not just saying we're going to, you know, deal with it after the event when many people are killed and haven't survived and when there's been ethnic cleansing and so on. What we have to do is prevent genocide. And so when South Africa took the case to the International Court of Justice, which of course is not a criminal court, it's a civil court. And so when they took them there, one of the purposes of law is also to be preventative. And it was to be preventative. It was to secure the interim

measures in the hope that it would stop a trajectory towards really hellish outcomes. And unfortunately, those interim measures by the world court have been ignored. And that, I think, is something that I think we will all come to regret if steps are not taken shortly to make sure that we don't see ethnic cleansing, that we don't see malnutrition and starvation, that we don't see what all will begin to look like extermination if we're not careful. So I mean, those are the issues in law and courts are the places to determine it, but people watching have their own sense of whether they think there might be reasonable grounds to believe, which is the test for warrants. And I do think that people are watching on their screens and they're watching

the news. And Israel, which has always had the support of the world because of the horrible experience that Jews have had over centuries, and particularly in the Holocaust, and so there is a sort of willingness to believe that somehow Israel wouldn't do this. But it's being defied by what people are seeing on their screens and what we are hearing by way of evidence from any sources, particularly doctors. And I think that the medical profession speaking about what they are seeing and what they're dealing with is very, very powerful in the ears of people around the world. And Afif Safir, we, and you gave context about this whole debate and Baroness

Kennedy talked there about the historic suffering of Jewish people, you talked about the historic suffering of Palestinian people. We're talking about war crimes this evening and as say, this phase of the conflict started on the 7th of October, but this conflict started long before that. But when we look at what happened on the 7th of October, and as we said, we're not a court, we're having a debate in a radio studio. But the war crimes that the crimes that people saw, the war crimes that people saw committed on the 7th of October. What will happen in that respect? Because in terms of that Hamas leadership, much of it is dead now.

Let me tell you that once we have the Palestinian authority didn't condemn the 7th of October until now. Please let a fifth of you. No, no, but he's representing the Palestinian authority. Why didn't they condemn the 7th of October? You need you need to let him answer, please I hope you will answer my question, please. Please. I would like to tell you that once the guns will cease fire Within Palestinian society there'll be a difficult Discussion Palestinian Palestinian on military strategy and the negotiating skills of Hamas But that's's a Palestinian matter that we'll be dealing with after the ceasefire. But what I would like to say today is the following. I believe in Israel-Palestine the oppressor hates the victim much more than the victim hates the oppressor. And I believe that Israeli

behavior today, it's as though Israel is retaliating against the Palestinian for all the suffering that Jews have endured throughout the centuries on other continents. Now, I personally believe that Israeli society today should do some soul-searching. I don't know if you're aware, an opinion poll that was published in Haaretz some days ago shows that 82% of Israeli Jewish society is in favor of the ethnic cleansing of Gaza forced transfer. 56% of Israeli Jewish society is in favor of kicking out the Palestinian Israelis. And all this asks us, challenges us to ask whether there is a sort of collective responsibility

with the ordeal. challenges us to ask whether there is a sort of collective responsibility. Well let's talk about collective responsibility because you talk there about Palestinian soul searching but what we're talking about this evening is war crimes and that would suggest that something much more than Palestinian soul searching is needed. No, no, the Israelis should do some soul searching because from the Gaza population of 2.2 million over 200,000 have either been killed or have been injured. But on the question that I'm asking you, please. Can I respond to it?

Just one moment. I really would like an answer to that question, please. More is required than Palestinian soul searching. On what happened on October the 7th. As I told you, it didn't happen in a vacuum. I for one have been saying for 30 years that we the Palestinians should adopt a nonviolent strategy of struggle. And I believe this is the strategy adopted by the mainstream of the Palestinian National Movement.

So what accountability will there be for what Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups did on the 7th of October? As I told you, there will be a difficult internal domestic discussion after the ceasefire. Is that enough? I think that should be enough because it will be a difficult discussion. Baroness Kennedy? Will people be handed over to the International Criminal Court? Because I'm sure that other warrants will be forthcoming.

And it will be, the same question will be asked of Israel, as will be asked of Palestinians, will there be a handing over of people for there to be open justice taking place? I mean one of the things I haven't dealt with is the fact that there is a principle of complementarity which would allow a state to carry out an independent judicial investigation and a legal process and a trial but I do want people to know that there hasn't been much sign of any of that going on in Israel up until now. And I know that international lawyers who consider themselves to be totally in sympathy

with Israel have spoken to the leadership in Israel and tried to encourage them to set up a commission, a judicial commission, and to set up a judicial commission and to have Israeli law judges on it and to invite in some international judges to sit on it and it has been rejected fairly clearly. I do want to allow Daniel Levi a moment to speak. I'm conscious that time is against us, Daniel. Yeah, but thank you. You're saying all the time accusations against Israel and you don't give me the response. Daniel Levi is also Israeli. So one of the tragedies of this. Yeah but he is siding with the other side. I'm siding with what I understand to be the tradition I come from and it's a proud tradition. Okay you're right we are democracy. One of the things that's tragic in this is that there were opportunities and

what has happened is that those Palestinians who pursued non-violence, which doesn't justify what has gone on, their path was blocked. When they tried to use the legitimate tools of boycott, of sanctions, the West stonewalled them and said, we won't do that. We won't get on board when Israel is doing these violations. That created much of the pressure cooker. And I'm glad that what Helena referred to earlier is true, that people find it hard to entertain the notion that Israel could have gone like this. But there's also a factor here, which is the conversation is chilled by what has become, I think, a very dangerous trivialization

of the use of antisemitism as a way of defending these actions. And it's happened here, whether you have Gary Lineker or Greta Thunberg, if you're an academic, if you're a media, if you're Jewish and you're standing up for universal values. And that's something we have to push back against. If you're a lawyer, if you're a lawyer, Andrew, you're... Michael Kleiner, do respond to that, please. Yeah, I try to be short. For example, our Palestinian colleagues said that there was a siege for 17 years and this justified the South Africa complaint just in the beginning,

before Israeli crimes, after 7th of October. And now the truth is that the only people that were evicted from Gaza were Jews by Israeli government. In 1995, Arik Sharon evicted the whole Israeli population from Gaza until the last person and the last soldier, and including people who were evicted once in 1948, because for 1,000 years there was a Jewish population in Gaza, they were all evicted, in order we hope that this will make peace. And then there was a Jewish population in Gaza. They were all evicted. In order, we hoped that this will make peace.

And then there was no Israeli soldier in Gaza. There was no siege because there is also a gate to Egypt. So Egypt is, my Palestinian friend says that Egypt was part of the siege. And what they did, the Hamas was throwing away his friend from the Palestinian authority from the roof, taking control in Hamas and building this machine who was intending to destroy the state of Israel.

What I'd like to do… If this was the case, why the settlements in the West Bank? Why the displacement in the West Bank? Gentlemen, gentlemen, please. One additional point, you know, the people in Gaza, surrounding Gaza… Michael Kleiner, I'm going to have to stop you because time is against us. The people in Gaza, surrounding Gaza, were people left-wing settlers. They were helping the Palestinians. They were driving them to hospitals.

And these people were murdered. Friends of Mr. Levy were murdered. You speak about proportionality. There is hardly a proportionality in allowing one side. Only because the program is almost at an end. There is hardly a proportionality in allowing one side to make his arguments. The program is almost finished and I want Lis Doucet, our chief international correspondent. I mean certainly look, we knew that this debate was going to be robust, that there was going to be a lot of emotion involved.

We were never going to sort of reach, we said at the start, we were never going to reach a conclusion in this short amount of time, but it's a vital conversation to have. Yes, we can already hear the sighs of listeners and viewers at homes and the, perhaps the frustration of, not the anger and emotion of people listening and watching at home. Our debate takes place in the midst of a grievous war. And as we've seen in this discussion, it is still a moment where two sides are talking past each other, many sides blaming each other, because it is still a moment of visceral pain for Israelis and Palestinians,

unprecedented pain, which is why we're having this discussion to go back to where we started. What Helena has described, the power of the law, dare I say it, the facts and the evidence to one day determined what went wrong, why wasn't there justice and we're not at that moment now. Lisa Doucette, Baroness Helena Kennedy, Casey, Michael Kleiner, Afif Safiyeh and Daniel Leaby, thank you for joining us. Thank you for listening. That was Anna Foster ending a BBC special debate. Israel Gaza, are we witnessing war crimes? And that's all from us for now, but there will be a new edition of the Global News podcast later. If you want to comment on this podcast or the topics

covered in it, you can send us an email. The address is globalpodcast.bbc.co.uk. You can also find us on X at BBC World Service. Use the hashtag globalnewspod. This edition was mixed by Jonny Hall. The producer was Peter Goffin. The editor is Karen Martin. I'm Nick Miles and until next time, goodbye. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the newly independent nation of Lithuania had a point to prove. Everything was political back then.

We had a responsibility so that the nation could be even more united in such difficult times. And their men's national basketball team did just that. Yeah, guys, we are strong enough to play the vault. With a little help from the iconic American rock group, The Grateful Dead. You couldn't make this story up if you tried. Amazing Sports Stories from the BBC World Service presents Bill Walton's The Grateful Team.

Listen now. Search for Amazing Sports Stories wherever you get your BBC podcasts.