Judging Freedom - Phil Giraldi: South Africa v. Israel - How Serious?

Episode Date: January 14, 2024

Phil Giraldi: South Africa v. Israel - How Serious?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Thank you. Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Wednesday, January 10th, 2024. Phil Giraldi is here with us today. How serious is the South African complaint alleging genocide against the Israeli government in the International Criminal Court, the hearings on which begin tomorrow? But first this. Can you believe the chaos confronting Americans today? The government is out of control. Debt is out of control. And have you heard? The dollar is under attack.

This will soon be replaced by digital currency. No more paper cash. It's coming fast. So you need to get educated in other ways to protect and preserve the wealth you already have. What happens if the government destroys the United States dollar? I don't know, but I do know they can't destroy gold or silver or the value of it. That's why it's so important that you learn now how to transfer your wealth into gold and silver.

So educate yourself about investing in precious metals. Take charge of your retirement with gold-backed IRAs. And you can transfer a portion of your existing IRAs tax and penalty free. So don't procrastinate. Take control. Do the right thing for you and your family. Go to learjudgenap.com or call 800-511-4620. Phil, welcome here, my dear friend.

This complaint filed by South Africa against Israel, which you and I have read, it's 84 pages long, it's replete with incredible, incredible details beyond me what Israel's defense will be. What role behind the scenes, if any, will U.S. intelligence play? I mean, stated differently, will the American government attempt to corrupt the judicial process to impede the ability of the court to find liability on the part of the Israeli government? Well, that's a good question. And I think the answer to that is, in my mind, in my opinion, that this will be less of an intelligence operation, although intelligence will certainly play a role in it, and more of a straight out state department,

government to government pressuring of other countries that might be inclined to sign on to this opinion. And first of all, I think this is the International Court of Justice, and it's not the ICC. And it has a different agenda, which is basically countries that are misbehaving. And there is no question about that, Israel, in terms of the genocide convention that was signed both by Israel and the United States, that Israel is guilty as hell over committing genocide in terms of how it's defined. So the United States will be pressuring countries directly, I think, with offers of money, aid, weapons, whatever seems to work. And I think this is what we're going to see over the next maybe certainly several weeks and maybe a lot longer than that. The opening statements are tomorrow with the statement by South Africa, and then Israel

comes back on Friday. And then after that, it's back and forth. And of course, the court has justices or members that represent a whole number of different countries. So there's going to be a lot of quid pro quo and a lot of games played here. And I think the United States will be resorting to outside the box kind of pressure of various kinds that it thinks will appeal to the other members

of the board. It's a strange court. I mean, there are 13 justices on the court, but 15 will hear the case. Israel gets to designate a justice, and South Africa gets to designate a justice. Israel designated a former justice of the Supreme Court of Israel who is a notorious opponent of the Netanyahu regime and who is himself a Holocaust survivor. I don't know who South Africa designated, but it is inconceivable to me what defense there could possibly be. I mean, you and I have read the complaint. It's 84 pages long. It consists of factual statements that really are not in dispute about what the IDF has done. And since genocide is a case of intent, it quotes at great length Prime Minister Netanyahu. Here's

a couple of paragraphs from the appendage to the complaint. It quotes at great length some of the things Prime Minister Netanyahu has said and members of his cabinet have said, which indicate unmistakably the intent to engage in genocide. These people are animals. These people are subhumans. We're going to turn Yonkunas, the capital roughly of Gaza, into a soccer field. We're going to push them into the ocean. We can bury them alive. I mean, the most reprehensible statement's imaginable, but for purposes of a court construing intent, as you say, it's a slam dunk. It's all there.

Israel's defense was, or is, it's a blood libel. Now, you and I know that as a medieval phrase in which Catholic priests were alleged to have slaughtered young Jewish boys and used the blood to make the wafers that are consecrated at mass. It was entirely made up. It wasn't true at all. But what kind of a defense is that? Well, I mean, the fact is, of course, as you're pointing out very clearly, it's not a defense at all.

I mean, this is this is if we look at this in your area of expertise in judicial terms, this is a slam dunk. But the fact is, it's not that's not what it's about at all. This is about power politics and who is going to be playing on which side and for what reasons. And the United States, for example, will probably have a number, at least a number, and maybe even a majority of European countries who will be sympathetic to the view of letting Israel off the hook on this. So there is like an audience to be played to and but this is a political thing the the fact is that the united states is not innocent in this the united states is absolutely complicit in this genocide because it's been arming israel and giving them money and giving

them political cover to allow them to not be responsible for this the sorts of things they're doing we had that farce play out a couple weeks ago in the united nations where the resolution that uh was introduced by the secretary general that would have brought about at least a temporary ceasefire and introduction of humanitarian aid into gaza was basically basically defanged by the United States. The United States made it so Israel would be controlling the situation, which it is. And what is it doing? It's watching people die of starvation and lack of medication. And it's bombing Gaza daily. They killed 247 Gazans two nights ago in bombing. So this is going on. They're getting away with it. And the United States is totally complicit. So the United States should be indicted together with Israel

in terms of what's going on here. All right. A couple of statements. I misspoke on blood libel. The allegation was the opposite of what I said. The allegation was that the Jewish people were supposed to have made Passover matzah from the blood of Gentile boys. None of this was true. It was a big brouhaha in the Middle Ages. And those of you who have written into correcting, I stand corrected, and I appreciate the correction, and thank you very much for it. Now, this is a civil court, not a criminal court. This is not the ICC. This is not the International Criminal Court.

The United States, Israel, China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, what a gaggle of countries, are not members of the International Criminal Court. All other countries are. But this court is the highest court of the United Nations. If you're a member of the United Nations, you are subject to the ICJ, the International Court of Justice. This resolves disputes between countries, one of which is an allegation by one country, South Africa, that another country, member country, Israel, has engaged in genocide. It seems to me like it is a slam dunk. What will

happen this week, you're quite correct, Phil, is just opening arguments from the lawyers. So we'll find out when the Israeli lawyers speak, who are British barristers, by the way, on Friday of this week. Thursday is the opening statements by the South African lawyers. Friday are the opening statements by the British lawyers. The 15 judges are permitted to question, just like the U.S. Supreme Court of nine justices can interrupt lawyers and question them. They can do that. But for the foreseeable future, there is no testimony. It's just the documents submitted and the arguments made by the lawyers. Should the United States be a co-defendant here? I would like to see that for personal reasons, because I think it's the stuff that's been going on in this country for the last four years or so and beyond that is horrendous. You know, we're getting involved in wars that were avoidable.

We're assassinating people around the world. We're doing things that are just awful. And the Israelis are doing that in spades, much more than us even, bombing all their neighbors. You know, this is unique in history, I would say, where you have two countries that are de facto engaging in war against a whole bunch of other countries uh and uh not declaring war uh and um this is is really strange this is this is shall we call it criminal behavior i don't know i think

we call it something more abominable than that and And I'd like to see the I'd like would like to see some American top executives in our government held accountable for this stuff. If they are if the case is made by South Africa overwhelmingly or at least to push it through, there are consequences for this. There are sanctions that could be put on individuals and could be put on the countries themselves for their unwillingness to seek a remedy to what the complaint is. And it's been pointed out in the newspapers that American diplomats who are involved in this probably in the future or could quite possibly in the future will not feel safe to travel to countries that are quite willing to enforce the judgment. So this is an angle on it. States did not sign the Treaty of Rome, which is the treaty that created the ICC, the International Criminal Court, does not prevent countries in the International Criminal Court from indicting Americans. Example, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have been indicted by Spanish magistrates. That's an EU-wide, a European Union-wide indictment and arrest warrant. So the former president and the former vice president of the United States cannot go to an EU country safely for fear that they would be

arrested. I don't know if it would be enforced and if they would actually be arrested, but it is an active, viable arrest warrant based on the complaints filed by the Spanish magistrates. I'm going to run a clip of David Cameron. He is the former British prime minister, now a member of the House of Lords. He's such a goofball, but he's Lord David Cameron. But he's also the British foreign minister. And he's being interrogated by a parliamentary committee about how many British nationals are hostages or how many British nationals were hostages and have been released in Gaza. Listen to his ambiguous answers and the even

more ambiguous answers of his colleague, his number two, who's really mumbling like, gosh, I almost can't even understand what he's trying to say. I don't think it's a British accent. I think he doesn't want to say truthfully, these two guys are under oath. I think, hat tip to our friend Max Blumenthal, who will be on right after you, I think British soldiers and troops have been captured, and the foreign minister doesn't want to admit it. See if you agree with me. See if you can figure out what they're trying to say. Be specific about the number of UK nationals who remain as hostages.

Yes, there are two. And do we have proof of life? There are two British nationals that remain as hostages. I don't want to make any further comment on them. There are also, of course... Do we know they're alive? I just don't want to say any more. We don't have any information to share with you.

There are also, of course, people very connected to Britain who are also hostages. A few of us were in Doha in December where we met with Roger Carstens, who is the US hostage negotiator. He can tell me in a minute's notice the names of all the hostages who are American who are still being held by Hamas,

let alone the ones in Venezuela or anywhere else in the country, and he can most certainly tell me how many have been brought back to the US. How many have been brought back to the UK who had UK citizenship? There were two, as the Foreign Secretary mentioned, who have British nationality who were hostages. There are others who are connected to the UK through family ties. I think the answer to your question is brought back to the UK by the UK government is, I think, it will

have to confirm. I don't really care who brought them back. I care about British nationals who were held hostage. How many have been brought back? Let me confirm after this, but I'll speak for myself rather than for the foreign secretary. I don't think there are any. Yeah. Okay. So the answer's zero. Yeah, I think that's right.

What do you think they're trying to hide, Phil? Well, first of all, that was particularly oily even for a British politician. But I won't tell my wife that since she's British. But anyway. I won't tell her you said it. The fact is, I mean, that was a pretty astonishing display of speaking out of both sides of your mouth simultaneously and not not saying anything i would suspect that some of these so-called british hostages are actually israelis um and uh they may have family in britain but that that hardly is a

direct linkage uh and and why they're being evasive about it i don't understand is it it doesn't necessarily show any failing on their part. It just shows their unwillingness to share information that for one reason or another they're choosing to sit on. This is odd. Who could possibly approve of the slaughter of 23,000 civilians. The death toll in Gaza is up to 26. We will accept the Israeli claim that 3,000 of them are Hamas fighters. That's 23,000 civilians killed.

Who could possibly justify that in a court of law, in a college debate, or in any forum where people understand right and wrong. Yeah, well, that's the fundamental issue here. I mean, the thing is, we do know that on October 7th, there was an attack by Hamas that penetrated into Israel and killed some people, not the 1,200, which is constantly being cited, because many of them or even most of them might have been killed by the israeli counter-attack right we don't know that too so the this is kind

of the the game that's being played you know the numbers game um though as you probably know better than i the laws of war such as they are uh stipulate that if one is attacked, one has a right to retaliate and to get back at the attacker. But there's also a rule of proportionality, which is essentially that if you have 10 people getting killed, you don't go out and shoot 10,000 of them. And the Israelis are totally unwilling to observe that. And I might add, in addition to what's going on in Gaza, I keep reading more and more about Palestinians being shot dead on the West Bank. There were some teenagers shot over the weekend, unarmed teenagers who weren't doing anything. And this has been going on. So there's a mindset within the Israeli military and government, and it's supported by

a lot of the Israeli people, that to shoot Palestinians is just like kind of, you know, something you do on your day off. Hmm. Is it generally accepted in the intelligence community, as far as you know, that Israel has failed in its invasion of Gaza to destroy Hamas? becoming more and more prevalent I I do talk to some people that are better wired than I am at the moment and um they are they are coming around more and more to the view that uh uh for many reasons we could probably talk for an hour about it um the Israelis have failed that essentially they will wind up killing a lot more people but they're not going to win the hearts and minds of most of the world in terms of what they're doing. And there might actually be some real consequences in terms of people economically and otherwise striking back at the Israelis, that they'll pay a price for this. And at the end of the day, they're not going to get rid of Hamas. Hamas may be kind of, I hate to put it this way, a dead issue in Gaza, but Hamas will still have a presence. Hamas will be still a voice. And you're

going to have other players that are going to be stepping in, like Hezbollah. And you might even put a backbone into the Palestinian liberation weapons. And so we'll see what happens. Well, the second war that I would argue Israel has also lost, you just alluded to this, Phil, is the international PR war. Is there a country on the planet besides the United States that publicly supports Israel? Well, on an official level, the Germans do. The Germans will put you into jail for criticizing Israel in this current context. The French are kind of on that borderline, too.

So there is this kind of vestige of Second World war guilt tripping and the israelis are and the jewish communities in those countries are very effective at exploiting that and effective doing the same doing in the united states look at our congress for god's sakes i mean how can congress how can how can almost a unanimous congress support the killing in gaza and we as amer as Americans, we don't even have a voice in it. You know, I've written to my congressman, congresswoman four times, and never got a reply. And I know other people that have similarly been active on the issue have had the same experience. These people are politicians driven by self-interest and party interest, and they don't really care if 100,000 Gazan children are dead. They really do not.

Is Congress willing to squelch free speech in America in deference to its donors, much as it coerced universities to squelch free speech in deference to their donors? I mean, are we about to confront a constitutional crisis where the Congress of the United States of America is acting at the behest of a foreign country and in direct violation of the Constitution, it is sworn to preserve, protect, and defend, which includes the First Amendment? Yeah, I think we're on the verge of that. And I think that there are a lot of congressmen who would go along with it, even while recognizing in their hearts of heart that this is the wrong thing to do, that this is actually an abrogation of a principal feature of the Constitution of the United States of America. Now, they can recognize all that, but they say, oh, well, you know, hey, it's the Israelis,

and they've given me $250,000 this year for my campaign donation. And besides which, Nancy Pelosi likes them and Chuck Schumer. And boy, our president of the United States calls himself a Zionist. Hey, it's all all right. They're good guys just like us. And that's a load of crap. Watch this talk being given by Congressman Raskin. Now, I know him.

I know him from one of my prior lives when I was a professor of constitutional law at three law schools. And Jamie Raskin was also a very well-regarded constitutional law professor. It's a small community. Now he's a congressman. He's a liberal Democrat. He's speaking in front of the, you see why I'm chuckling in a second, he's speaking in front of the Capitol building about the rule of law and watch what happens to someone, it turns out Ray McGovern and Matthew Ho know personally

and know well, is standing there silently with a sign. The political scientists tell us that the hallmarks of an authoritarian or fascist political party are that one, they do not accept the results of democratic elections that don't go their way. Two, they refuse to renounce or they openly embrace political violence as an instrument. What's the matter with this? Is something wrong with the sign? Israel, not above the law. Hold Israel accountable. Hold Israel accountable. They accept.

They're worse than Jan 6. Hold Israel accountable. Israel is not above the law. Hold it accountable. I'm sorry. Let me just start that again. Dear friend, defender of the First Amendment, defender of the Constitution, speaking about free speech and authoritarianism.

And they blocked this lady, it turns out, from Code Pink, which is how Ray and Matt know her, from standing there silently with a sign. I don't believe it. On federal property in front of the Capitol building, the quintessential place in America for the expression of free speech. And the cops push her away. Yeah, she's that woman from Code Pink, and she's been very active. She is very good. And of course, Raymond Governe has been prominent in showing up at these events too. Ray's been arrested with this lady. Right. But so to my question about and maybe Congressman Raskin, Jamie, is a metaphor for the whole Congress. I don't know. They are willing to squelch free speech in deference to the donors who support them.

You know, that's that's the corruption in our system that has basically taken it over. The money counts. I mean, there are congressmen who had the courage to buck that trend, like a Fulbright or a Percy or any number of ones we can cite, are removed. They basically, the special interests put their money into the process. They run their own candidates who, in the case of Israel, new candidates running for Congress, they are approached by AIPAC and other groups and asked to sign a statement saying that they love Israel and that they will support it if they are elected. And this is the name of the game in the United States.

This lady is an American. Her name is Medea Benjamin. You probably know her or know of her. She is a hero to the anti-war movement, and she has been for many years. Phil, it's always a pleasure, my dear friend, no matter what we talk about or what we have to analyze. David Cameron dancing around the English language, this poor lady being dragged away from the quintessential place of free speech, a congressman talking out of both sides of his mouth, the Israelis trying to defend the indefensible. A pleasure to be with you, my dear friend. Well, thank you again for having me. Of course. We'll see you again soon.

Coming up at four o'clock today, we will be going through all of this and more, including the problems that Benjamin Netanyahu is about to have keeping his government together with the one, the only, the inimitable Max Blumenthal. Four o'clock today, Eastern. Judge Paul Tana for judging freedom. Thank you.