Judging Freedom - INTEL Roundtable w/ Johnson & McGovern: Ukraine’s Last Gasp; ICJ Analysis

Episode Date: January 26, 2024

INTEL Roundtable w/ Johnson & McGovern: Ukraine’s Last Gasp; ICJ AnalysisSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Thank you. Hi there, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Friday, January 26th, 2024. Larry Johnson and Ray McGovern join us for our weekly intelligence community roundtable, which we like to have on Friday afternoon as we're sort of winding down for the week. Gentlemen, welcome back to the show. presiding justice of the International Court of Justice made a series of announcements, the first of which is that the court does have jurisdiction over South Africa's claim against Israel. Here's how she put it, number one from the court, Chris. In the court's view, the aforementioned facts and circumstances are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible. This is the case with respect to the right of Palestinians in Gaza to be protected

from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts identified in Article 3 and the right of South Africa to seek Israel's compliance with the latter's obligations under the convention. We'll go back and review the argument made by the lawyers for Israel. This is the basket in which they put most of their eggs, that the court did not have jurisdiction over this. And of course, that was rejected. But Larry, it's almost inconceivable. I guess nothing's inconceivable with Netanyahu. It is irrational for Israel to argue that the court doesn't have jurisdiction. When they joined the UN, they agreed to be

subject to this court. And when they signed the treaty against genocide, they agreed that this is the court that will decide if genocide was committed. We'll play Netanyahu's response in a minute. But it is ridiculous for the Israeli government to say, no jurisdiction, you can't get involved. Well, even the Israeli judge, the Israeli representative on that court, voted against Israel, you know, chose or rejected their argument, at least of the four items he sided with the majority on the last two. The only judge who voted against all of it was this judge from Uganda, and there's a lot of suspicion that she was

subjected to tremendous political pressure by the United States. So what stands clear is that an overwhelming majority of the ICJ have left open the door for pursuing genocide charges against the state of Israel, and which means that all other countries that are aiding and abetting that genocide could also find themselves in the trick box. But the court can't enforce anything. This is going to ultimately have to go to the Security Council. Remains to be seen whether the United States will veto. Odds are that they probably will, but I think we're seeing some other signs that the Biden team may have to reverse course. Do you wonder if the United States becomes a

co-defendant with Israel as the facilitator, enabler, and financer of genocide, Ray, if the United States would have to excuse itself from its vote on the Security Council, since one cannot be a judge in one's own case, in which case maybe the Security Council, now I'm thinking like I thought in my former life, maybe under those circumstances and those circumstances only, the United States would abstain from vetoing anything even remotely critical of Israel. But Larry makes a great point. The Israeli justice on the court. South Africa got the added justice. Israel got the added justice. That's the rules of the court. The Israeli justice is the former chief justice of the Israeli Supreme Court, appointed by Prime Minister Netanyahu to join the court.

And he voted with the majority in the most significant votes. Is there jurisdiction? And should they have to protect civilians? I don't know how it could have gone any other way, Ray McGovern. Well, Judge, you know more about whether the United States could abstain on this kind of vote. I hadn't really thought of them abstaining. I think, as Larry suggested, the odds strongly favor a veto. Now, what would that mean? That would mean that the U.S. not only supports apartheid, well-established, but also genocide. Now, what about this complicity business? What about the universal understanding that genocide could not happen without enabling

from the United States government? What about the complicity? What about the jeopardy that people might be placed in, as at Nuremberg, for being complicit in genocide? Well, you know, I don't think President Biden, in his older years, gives a rat's patootie. But, you know, there's a chance that this guy, Blinken, and Sullivan, still younger, and some of these other younger folks who might live two or three or four more years and might see this stuff go really south and become tried in an international court for assisting genocide. That, I think, is the only chance that Biden would be able to be proud and say, well, look, Mr. President, maybe we ought to try to abstain on

this one. I don't know. I think Ray makes a good point, Larry. We've talked about this before. President George W. Bush has been indicted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes, slaughtering innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan, and bringing the United States into wars under false pretenses and various other crimes for which there's no statute of limitations. Joe Biden is dittering and doddering, whatever the word is. He's well past his prime. Who knows how much longer he will even know who he is. But Tony Blinken and Jake Sullivan and the others are going to be around for a while. They could foreseeably see themselves as defendants in the dock.

What do you think? Well, I think one of the critical variables is that Joe Biden has not had a political event in the last three weeks when it was not disrupted, interrupted by protests, people calling him Genocide Joe, demanding ceasefire in Palestine. It doesn't matter whether he's out talking about abortion, climate change, the economy, time after time after time, the crowd, significant numbers in the crowd are erupting and protesting. The numbers also show that for the under 40 crowd, the vast majority support Palestine, not Israel.

So the Democrat leadership, the ones that are telling Biden what to do, they're facing a real choice. On the one hand, they got all these Democrat billionaires, people like Bill Ackman and others that are kicking in lots of money and demanding that there be, you know, completely unwavering support for Israel. But then you got the fact that you've got all these Muslim populations in places like Michigan. You got auto workers. You've got these a large number of the young voters that completely reject Israel, see Israel as a genocidal country. And, you know, I don't know how many more times Biden can go out and get beat up like that verbally in public, because he doesn't like it. He's thin-skinned, and he's going to, I think that's the one thing that could ultimately cause a reversal in U.S. policy on this and lead, if nothing else, to an abstention.

It's difficult to watch when he does that. Ray, before you jump in on this, Chris, let's play the first ruling. So this is 15 to 2. Israel shall take measures to stop the killing of innocents, to stop the bodily harm to innocents, to stop any physical harm to innocence. I shall now read out the operative part of the order. For these reasons, the court indicates the following provisional measures. One, by 15 votes to two, the State of Israel shall, in accordance with its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in relation to the Palestinians in Gaza, take all

measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article 2 of the Convention. In particular, A, killing members of the group. B. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group. C. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. And D. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group. Measures intended to prevent births within the group. The group are the Palestinian people. No killing, no harm, no whipping up forces, calling for genocide. How is Netanyahu going to silence those two maniacs in his cabinet. No physical destruction of members of the group. This must mean a ceasefire, right? Because the IDF doesn't know how to fight a war without doing what the court just prohibited. Well, that's the empty part of this glass. The court did not call for a ceasefire explicitly, but the other things they call for ipso facto require a ceasefire. Let me comment on the solemn way that the presiding judge, the president of the court, proceeded. I had my fears. On the good side, she has an Irish name.

On the other side, she worked for Hillary Clinton as chief lawyer of the State Department at the worst times, attacked on Libya and all that kind of stuff. So I said, oh my God, what do we have here? Well, I have to say, I'm really pleasantly surprised. I mean, 15 to 2? I mean, she played it straight. And she issued this statement in such a measured and dignified tone. I think the whole world said, you know, this is not a kangaroo court, for God's sake. This is a Hillary Clinton appointee telling the truth for once. So I'm encouraged that this glass seems to me more than half full, not empty. Chris, let's play ruling two and follow it right up with ruling three. And I'll tell you the difference between the two and the profound significance of number

three. By 15 votes to two, the state of Israel shall ensure, with immediate effect, that its military does not commit any acts described in point 1 above. Now point ruling 3, Chris. The state of Israel shall take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip. All measures within its power to prevent and punish calls for genocide. That one had the Israeli Supreme Chief Justice of the former Chief Justice of the Israeli Supreme Court with the majority. That's the 16 to 1. Only Uganda dissented. That's basically saying to Bibi, you got to silence those crazy people in your cabinet that are calling for genocide, Larry. That's basically what this says without using the word genocide. Actually, she did use the word genocide in this one. One second. I'm sorry. I'm getting carried away here. Chris, read the 16 to 1 verdict, the one you just ran. Play that one more time.

By 16 votes to 1, the state of Israel shall take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip. Yeah. There you have it. So it's not just prevent, it's punish as well. Correct. So this means, you know, Bibi Netanyahu, they're telling him, shut the hell up. Shut it down. Stop. The same to Itamar Ben-Gavir. The same to Smotrich. And frankly, the same to almost every member of the Israeli

war cabinet. They're all guilty of saying, basically talking about destroying the Palestinians and eradicating them from the face of the earth. That's what they're about. The saving grace, this comes at an interesting time because the Israeli military is really struggling. They're not steamrolling

Hamas. Hamas continues to inflict significant casualties on them, and casualties that frankly, I don't think Israel is going to be able to sustain. They're too small a country, and the political unity that existed back on October 7th, that's gone. And I think that, you know, Max Blumenthal talked about that extensively on your show yesterday. Yes. Ray, this one is for you. This is the Irish government opposition leader. You will love her. Chris? So the judgment from the court in The Hague is in, and it is significant to those who said that South Africa had no case. Well, they've got their answer.

The court has ruled that South Africa has a case, that Israel has a case to answer in respect of violations of the Convention on the Prevention of Genocide. And now there are no more excuses. The international community must hear the rulings of the court, which are binding on everyone. Israeli impunity must end. Attacks on Palestinians must end. Genocidal actions must end. And of course, the court didn't use the word ceasefire,

but the only way to operationalize the findings of the court is a full, permanent, and complete ceasefire. I think she's right, Ray. Of course she's right. And this shows that not only Mick and Claire Daly are right in arguing in the European Parliament that this is a genocide and should stop, but this is Ireland facing up to their own history and saying, you know, we know what genocide is like. For God's sake, listen to the ICJ on this one. There's no escaping the inevitable conclusion. Stop the killing. Here's Prime Minister Netanyahu just about two hours ago calling the South African

case a vile attempt to interfere with Israel's right to defend itself. Israel's commitment to international law is unwavering. Equally unwavering is our sacred commitment to continue to defend our country and defend our people. Like every country, Israel has an inherent right to defend itself. The vile attempt to deny Israel this fundamental right is blatant discrimination against the Jewish state, and it was justly rejected. The charge of genocide leveled against Israel is not only false, it's outrageous, and decent people everywhere should reject it.

On the eve of the International Holocaust Remembrance Day, I again pledge as Israel's Prime Minister, never again. Israel will continue to defend itself against Hamas, a genocidal terror organization. On October 7th, Hamas perpetrated the most horrific atrocities against the Jewish people since the Holocaust, and it vows to repeat these atrocities again and again and again. Our war is against Hamas terrorists, not against Palestinian civilians. We will continue to facilitate humanitarian assistance and to do our utmost to keep civilians out of harm's way even as Hamas uses civilians as human shields. We will continue to do what is necessary

to defend our country and defend our people. So one of the hundreds and hundreds of folks writing in during this show recently said, Judge, nothing in Israel will change. I guess maybe Netanyahu has pretty much said that, Larry. Well, Netanyahu is a terrorist who is holding the Holocaust hostage, hiding behind it to justify his terrorist acts, period. It is disgraceful.

It is disgusting. He has nothing about the rule of law. Israel had actual alternatives they could have pursued if it was only about getting Hamas. If nothing else, they could have collaborated with the Egyptians, the Turks, and the Saudis to cut off Hamas funding. They chose not to do that. This was about destroying and eliminating the Palestinians who inhabit Gaza, pushing them out. And, you know, the irony is this comes on the tomorrow's the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz by Soviet troops.

And, you know, it's really sickening that Netanyahu tries to invoke the memory of the Holocaust when he himself is engaged in the same kind of heinous, despicable actions that the Nazis carried out against the Jews, only now he's doing it to Palestinians. He's even doing it to his own people. There is the corroborated story of the gassing of an IDF hostage gassed by the IDF. The mother is a veterinarian, and she's become an anti-Netanyahu folk hero of sorts. Apparently, he made the mistake of allowing her into his home,

and she confronted him in no uncertain terms. Here's the South African foreign minister. It is she who actually filed the complaint. Here's her analysis of what the court did. I satisfied that the provisional measures that we sought to be addressed would be addressed by the court and I believe if you read the convention very carefully, the matter of how a war or conflict is conducted is not elaborated. I would have wanted that the word cessation is included in the judgment. I have no way that I'm going to say I'm disappointed. I hoped for it, but the fact of delivering

humanitarian aid, the fact of taking measures that reduce the levels of harm against persons who have no role in what Israel is combating, for me, requires a ceasefire. And I believe Israel would have to attend to how it conducts its search for the hostages and for those Hamas individuals who carried out the October 7 attack. What's the next step? I've never really been hopeful about Israel, but Israel has very powerful friends who I hope will advise Israel that they should act. Ah, that is the first reference we have seen in any of this, Ray, to the United States and the people in the United States who have a vice on the White House and the Congress

over this. That's right. Let me tell you just a small vignette of when I was in the Knesset. This was 2016. We were invited by the- You must have been in disguise. There's no way they'd let you in there. Well, they gave me a thorough search, but I was with Mikko Pellet, an Israeli citizen. Okay. Now, we went in there and we were entertained in this very, very modest conference room by the

Palestinian delegation. And whose pictures were on the wall? Martin Luther King Jr., other liberation followers during the civil rights segment, period. The other thing is that that attorney for South Africa, she looks exactly like my friend Ruby Sales, who is a prominent 17-year-old person in Mississippi when her white friend was shot right in front of her, and the shot was aimed at Ruby. These are all of the same kind. They're birds of the same feather in the best sense of the word. They care about justice. And isn't it ironic that those terrorists from Yemen, the Huchis, are the ones that come out smelling real well here, because they're the ones that are pursuing justice, and how this decision will relate to justification for what they're doing, because they're trying to end the genocide too. That'd be interesting too, but it's ironic that the hoochies are the people that are on the right side of justice in this, and you can call them terrorists if you like.

I don't call them terrorists. Larry, will anything change tomorrow, next week, next month in Gaza because of this court ruling? Yes, I think it will. People say, oh man, Johnson, what are you smoking or what delusion or lack of blood flow to the brain do you have? It's not going to be immediate, but this is going to ratchet up the political pressure on the Biden administration. Again, it'd be one thing if the Democrats were solidly united behind Biden on this. They are not. The division within the Democrat Party on this issue is growing. It's not subsiding.

So that is going to bring pressure coupled with the actual legal risks that will attend being included as an accomplice to genocide because that opens the door to a whole raft of civil cases that can be prosecuted and people can bring suit against the United States. So it's something the United States is going to have to consider. And then on top of it, things are not going well with respect to stopping the Houthis. So the Houthis are shutting down the Red Sea to all Israeli, U.S., and U.K. ships. Everybody else can go through fine. But if you're a U.S., U.K., or Israeli, they're going to shoot at you. And the U.S. Navy failed yesterday trying to escort two ships. They got chased off. And so that's not going to change. So I don't see anything on the horizon that's going to strengthen Israel, coupled with

the fact as they continue to suffer losses, I think the saner political voices within Israel are going to grab Netanyahu and toss him out and try to see if they can get Israel back to where it's going to have some measure of respect in the international community, because right now they have none. Ray, is the United States military, I guess we're talking about the Navy, in any position to wage a full-scale contest against the Houthis or whoever? No way. No way. Right. Larry Wilkerson said yesterday, this is remarkable, we have 11 battleships, the type of piece of equipment that you would need over there. Warships, yeah.

Right. Only three of them are seaworthy, and one of them is in Japan. Yeah, let me just comment on what Larry said. Play the devil's advocate here, okay? Here we have Biden. We talk about his wooden-headedness, okay? We talk about his senility, and he's making the decisions I'm forced to conclude. So he thinks, as he told 60 Minutes, we're the United States of America.

We're the most powerful country in the world. In the world. You understand that? So, now, Blinken, Sullivan, and Nuland, the principal players here, are all Zionists. Okay? So, they're emotional. They have this almost fanatical design to help whoever is in Israel reigning in Israel. Now, the only thing about more saner voices in Israel, there ain't any, there ain't any that I can observe. So this is kind of a

really bad mixture here with a benighted president, accomplices who are Zionists, and admittedly so, the president himself bragging about being a Zionist. And you have people in Israel that are in the very top who just are too much committed here. There are no senior voices. So Larry may be right, but I just caution that it's really not so simple. Yeah.

What I'm hearing you both say is that this is worse than the American people recognize. Biden's incompetence, American military weakness, and the passion, the unbridled passion of the neocons to get us into another war. Yeah. Yeah. Now, what about the children? Yeah. What about the children? Yeah, what about the children? When B.B.

I hate to call him B.B. When Prime Minister Netanyahu mentioned Amalek, if you read this Amalek stuff, supposedly, I don't believe this is true. I'm a serious traditional Roman Catholic, but this has got to be some sort of an allegory in the Old Testament, the God supposedly said to the Jews, even slaughter the sucklings, the babies suckling at their mother's tits. That's the imagery that the prime minister of Israel connoted when he said Amalek. So when you call him a terrorist, Larry, as courageous as it is, it's also correct. Well, yeah, right. And look, let's make it is, it's also correct. Well, yeah, right. And look, let's make it very simple. Would the Israelis, if the roles were reversed,

if the Palestinians had the power, authority, and presence that the Israelis now have, and if the Israelis were in the position of the Palestinians, would they be satisfied with that? Would they go along with that? Would they accept it? Hell no, they wouldn't. They would refuse. They would rise up in revolt, which is exactly what the Palestinians are doing. So it's incumbent upon the Israelis to step back and reflect on the Holocaust, reflect what was done to them, and realize you're doing unto others

exactly that which was done unto you, and it's a sin. Gentlemen, thank you very much for joining us. You have brought a huge audience. This is a profound issue. This is not splitting jurisprudential hairs. I agree with both of you. As bad as Israel is losing the PR war, this is a major blow against it yet again. Have a great weekend. Thank you for coming here on Friday. We're always so happy when we do our Friday gigs. We'll see you both on Monday. All the best. Thanks so much, Judge. Thank you. Coming up at two o'clock Eastern, Professor Jeffrey Sachs with his analysis of the decision of the International Court of Justice. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thanks for watching!