Judging Freedom - Prof Jeffrey Sachs: Does Israel Have a Defense at UN Court?

Episode Date: January 14, 2024

Prof Jeffrey Sachs: Does Israel Have a Defense at UN Court?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 Thursday, January 11th, 2024. Professor Jeffrey Sachs joins us from Cambodia. Professor, you never astound me where you're going to pop up. Crystal clear and looking youthful as ever, but thank you very much for joining us here. Great to be with you. Greetings from Phnom Penh. Thank you. Professor Sachs, as we speak, it's nine o'clock at night in Phnom Penh. It's nine in the morning here in New Jersey. It's three or four, forgive my ignorance, in the afternoon in Brussels.

But as we speak, the International Court of Justice of the United Nations is meeting and hearing the complaint of South Africa versus Israel alleging genocide. So first, how serious, how compelling, how detailed is the complaint? Well, this is an absolutely astounding day, a historic day. South Africa has filed an application with the International Court of Justice. This is the UN's global court in The Hague in the Netherlands, and it addresses disputes between governments. In this case, this is a dispute brought by South Africa claiming that Israel is undertaking genocidal actions and with genocidal intent. And the legal basis for this complaint, this application to the International Court of Justice is that both South Africa and Israel are parties to the 1948 Genocide Convention. And so this is a complaint that South Africa is making

that it is entitled to make as a signatory to the Genocide Convention, which compels all of the signatory countries, including Israel, to abide by the terms of the Genocide Convention. It's stunning, amazing to watch these proceedings. South Africa filed an extremely detailed application, 84 pages, describing both the intentionality of Israel in destroying Gaza, in making Gaza uninhabitable, and the actions of Israel in bombing core infrastructure, in blocking the inflows of water, food, medicine, fuel that are basic necessities of life, and the combination of the statements by Israeli leaders from the prime minister and president through the cabinet to members of the Knesset to leaders of the Israel Defense Forces is a shocking list of statements because these are statements saying flat out

that Gaza is to be destroyed, is to be made uninhabitable, because what they said was flat out, unbelievably ugly and destructive. And I think South Africa makes a compelling case, expressive of genocidal intent. So to watch this in a body of law rather than in the spin of, say, a White House briefing or somebody just brushing this aside as John Kirby did when he said, well, this is a bunch of nonsense. The United States rejects all of this as nonsense, or the president of Israel saying this is a blood libel. But to hear it spelled out methodically, hour after hour in precise judicial proceedings,

is, I think, a historic day because Israel is being examined closely for what it has said and what it is doing. And this is, to my mind, the highest responsibility and application of the concept of international law. So I think it's a very big day. The law is very clear. And so our listeners know why you dwelt extensively on intent and why the document itself quotes at length statements from Prime Minister Netanyahu and from many, many people in the

Israeli government who pulled the levers of power and the things they said were utterly repellent. You seem to have paused for a second trying to find an adjective horrific enough to describe what they said, but things like burn them alive, bury them alive, they're subhuman. How do you characterize that? What kind of a mind can justify that kind of slaughter of innocents? But to my point, the law requires that the applicant here, South Africa, show not only that genocide took place, but that it wasn't an accident, that it was intentional. And when you can use, I can tell you this from my prior life on the bench, when you can use the words of your adversary to prove your case, that is the most compelling way

to prove your case. Let's watch just a minute or so of the initial opening argument this morning. You may have seen this already, Professor Sachs. This is cut 13, Jeff, the opening statement. The violence and the destruction in Palestine and Israel did not begin on the 7th of October 2023. The Palestinians have experienced systematic oppression and violence for the last 76 years, on 6 October 2023 and every day since October 7, 2023. In the Gaza Strip, at least since 2004, Israel continues to exercise control over the airspace, territorial waters, land crossing, water, electricity,

and civilian infrastructure, as well as over key government functions. No armed attack on state territory, no matter how serious, even an attack involving atrocity crimes, can provide any justification for or defense to breaches to the Convention, whether as a matter of law or morality. Israel's response to the 7th of October 2023 attack has crossed this line. Last clip, just for those unfamiliar with this kind of a corporate seating,

the very end of the clip, you saw all 15 judges, two judges added to the panel, one from Israel, one from South Africa. The other 13 are permanent. It's interesting. I thought of you, Professor Sachs, when I saw the name of the person was added. And I saw the last name Barak. And I thought, oh, my God, this is the former prime minister and former general.

But it's not. It's the former chief justice of the Israeli Supreme Court, a opponent of Prime Minister Netanyahu, whom the Israeli government designated. He's 87 years old, but he's the grand old man, if you will, of Israel law and judiciary, universally respected, and they designated him. I want you to see one more argument before you weigh in. And this is the argument of another lawyer for South Africa who shows a video. And I want you to be able to assess the significance of the video that he shows. On December 2023, Israeli soldiers proved that they understood the Prime Minister's message to remember what the Amalek has done to you as genocidal. They were recorded by journalists dancing and singing.

We know our motto, they are no uninvolved, that they obey one commandment to wipe off the seed of Amalek. The Prime Minister's invocation of Amalek is being used by soldiers to justify the killing of civilians, including children. These are the soldiers repeating the inciting words of their Prime Minister. All right. Let's start at the end. What is the significance of Israeli soldiers in Gaza dancing and chanting? We come to address Amalek. Well, there is a very important subtext to all of this, which is the use of biblical symbology

and biblical and religious beliefs that are part of Israel's rhetoric and core to Israel's politics. Amalek is a part of the Bible when the Israelites are instructed by God to kill all of this nation. And it is one of many genocides, in fact, in the Old Testament. The book of Joshua, which is the part of the Bible, the sixth book of the Old Testament, in which the Israelites, after having escaped from Egypt, in the exodus from Egypt, arrive at their promised land and are instructed by God, according to the book of Joshua, to not only take the land, but to kill every man,

woman, and child in the land that they are to take. And it's very clear, repeatedly, from one nation to the next in the book of Joshua, that this is shall survive. Now, fast forward 2,600 years, and these texts are being referred to explicitly by the prime minister, by the Israel Defense Forces, and by a large part of the Israeli politics, much of which reflects a religious zealotry that takes the Bible as the literal basis for action. And the Bible has in these texts the instructions for genocide, for killing everybody. And we hear this echo, not only in the video that the South African lawyer showed, but in a shocking compilation of videos that Grayzone produced. Max Blumenthal, the investigative reporter, produced, released, and posted on Gray Zone a compilation that is filled one after another with this biblical reference, this genocidal fever, and the chanting and delight at the destruction of everybody. So what we're seeing here is a mix of military brutality, religious zealotry, political manipulation in a concoction that is extraordinary. I think it is so foreign to our eyes to see this,

but in the court to have it laid out so explicitly, and the court is a place of decorum. You saw the lawyer, how dignified and eloquent he was. I listened to much of his presentation earlier in the day, and the room was silent, listening, having to absorb this direct evidence, not having the ever-present and, for me, utterly disgusting spin from the White House newsroom or some other spin, but actually listening to the realities, grim realities laid out one by one. That's why I think this was a historic day. Here's what the White House actually had to say about it. This is, I think you've seen this and I know you won't be happy and neither am I but we have to expose this stuff here's Admiral Kirby expressing the White House's opinion

this is three or four days ago so this is before the oral argument on the application, the 84 page complaint filed by South Africa South Africa has filed this 84 pagepage lawsuit against Israel, accusing them of genocide. Israel says that this is blood libel. Does Washington agree? And where does this put Washington and Pretoria?

We find this submission meritless, counterproductive, and completely without any basis in fact whatsoever. I guess he didn't read it if he finds it meritless, counterproductive and completely without any basis in fact. And I guess Washington is the only country in the world willing to make a statement as outrageous as that. You know, I find him insufferable day by day. I do know that. Yes. You know, I don't exactly hide it because I just wish there were grownups in power, grownups who were responsible, who were honest, who were decent, who would read an 84-page detailed complaint and give a serious answer rather than a one-sentence smack-off like that. I wish at the same time that the White House press corps would follow up more seriously. Actually, if I remember correctly, that question started with a few words, just a quick one. And then the question was asked and Kirby responded

in this utterly disgusting way when the most important issue on the planet is in front of him and couldn't do more than one dismissive, phony and false statement. But then there's no follow up. Then they move on to the next topic and the next topic. I sometimes think those questions are staged, Jeff, and it's terrible. It's terrible for the American public and it's demeaning to the profession of journalism. Yes. How could the journalist say, Mr. Kirby, it's 84 detailed pages and you say there's no factual basis? Why don't we look at page 10? Why don't we look at page 12? Why don't the journalists do their job? Rather than feeding us the propaganda from the White House, they should be questioning the propaganda. That's why I was grateful for today's court proceedings, because there were hours to put forward the evidence. There is a detailed legal complaint. There are dozens of countries that have supported this. But the U.S. government is all spin, all propaganda, and all attempt at narrative control. And Judge Napolitano, that's why you're doing such a service, because you're bringing these issues to the public attention and to the world attention.

But the press that's in that room doesn't even follow up with another question. Your criticism of the press is right on. I want to mention something. You mentioned Max Blumenthal, who's my friend and who regularly appears on the show, yesterday on the show, he challenged Bobby Kennedy to a debate on Israel, and I offered to moderate the debate. Now, that's out there. Chris tells me it was tossed about in Twitter or X, whatever they call themselves now, last night. So I hope that comes to pass. I would imagine the audience would be huge. It would be difficult for me to be perfectly neutral because

I can see with my own eyes what's happening. But if I am privileged to moderate that debate, I will be neutral. What defense should we expect tomorrow? Today is all opening arguments from the lawyers from South Africa. Tomorrow, the Israeli lawyers, by the way, are British barristers, take over. What conceivable defense could there be? What mentality of humanity justifies the slaughter of 26,000 people, at most 3,000 of whom were soldiers? Well, they're going to say that this is in self-defense, that a terrible terrorist attack occurred on October 7, which is true. But as the South African prosecutor said today, that is no defense under the Genocide Convention. They're going to say that these statements are aimed at Hamas, their military enemy, not at the civilian population. That is plainly false because the statements are explicit about all of the population.

They're going to say that they take ex on Gaza, stopped the food, the water, the fuel, the medical supplies. Hamas, which is plainly false because 70% of those killed are women and children, and many of the men killed are absolutely not Hamas soldiers. but they're going to deny what is plainly in front of the world's eyes, which are genocidal statements that are pervasive and rampant and actions against the entire civilian population, not at all targeted at a massive loss of life that is overwhelmingly civilian, and the displacement of 2 million people, where Hamas has perhaps 30,000 fighters. So Israel is going to make a defense of self-defense that is itself not defensible, because the plain facts are contrary to what Israel has been saying every day since this invasion into Gaza began. Do you have a finger on the pulse of how American Jews view the genocide?

I mean, I understand Joe Biden is caught in a vice. He's caught between the donor class, the AIPAC folks, and younger people that are traditionally Democrats, but who are horrified by the genocide. So question one is, should the United States be a co-defendant? And then if we come back to the U.S., you know, you live and work at Columbia University, a large Jewish American population in Manhattan. Do you have a finger on the pulse about how they feel? Answer either question in which either order you wish, any order you wish. I think it's quite clear from the opinion surveys that the broad American public is aghast at what's happening because they're watching, like all of us, day by day, a slaughter of civilians. I think it's clear that there is a generational gradient, as you pointed out,

where young people are absolutely defending the Gazan civilian population, whereas older people are tending more towards backing Israel, because that is the way that it has been for decades. But even so, even among older respondents to the opinion surveys, there is a tremendous, tremendous unease. And in the Jewish community, of course, it's very divided. It's divided by age. It's divided by class. It's divided by interest group. It's divided by are parts of Orthodox Jewry, notably the Satmar community in Brooklyn, New York, which says that the whole concept of Israel and Zionism was misconceived because in their view it was religiously misconceived. And, of course, other Orthodox Jews take a different view. So it's a lot of division. What we don't have is any overwhelming groundswell of support for Israel in this, quite the contrary. The American people, every time they're asked and have an opportunity to speak, say cease fire now.

Americans do not want to be complicit in this massacre and in this genocide as South Africa is describing it today in the International Court of Justice. Should the U.S. be a co-defendant, Professor Sachs? Well, the U.S. is going to be a co-defendant in the court of public opinion because the overwhelming understanding of the world is that Israel could not do this from one day to the next without the United States' active support. And it is active support in one absolutely key way, which is providing the bombs, the munitions, the artillery, the shells that are killing people and that are destroying the habitability and the infrastructure and that have displaced nearly the entire population. And so the Americans wring their hands.

Blinken says we have to take more care of civilians and so forth, but then signs an order that subverts congressional oversight to directly deliver the munitions to Israel, no strings attached, no conditions whatsoever, so that this continues. So America is complicit. And a subtext of this is that America is on trial as well because America is Israel's sole backer in the military campaign that is underway in Gaza. I want to run two clips for you, both involving someone you and I know and whose work we admire, Medea Benjamin, who is an American Jew. Also someone you and I know, Congressman Jamie Raskin.

In the first clip, Congressman Raskin is giving a speech condemning authoritarian governments outside the Capitol. Watch what happens to Medea while she is silently standing there. And then we'll go right into the second clip, which is a few days later. Medea is in the hallways of the Senate and she approaches two senators, Rick Scott of Florida and John Cornyn of Texas. It's very interesting to hear what Scott and Cornyn say to her because it's based on the Israeli propaganda. So first with Jamie Raskin and then with the two senators. 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 scientists? We'll let them off. Hold them accountable.. Hold Israel accountable. Hold Israel accountable.

They accept. They are worse than Jan 6. Hold Israel accountable. Israel is not above the law. Hold it accountable. They accept. I'm sorry. Let me just start that again.

They beheaded babies. They raped young girls. They did not. They did not. That's just propaganda to keep this war going. It's a genocide. We need a ceasefire. We need a ceasefire.

We need a ceasefire. We need a ceasefire. We need a ceasefire. We need a ceasefire. We need a ceasefire. We need a ceasefire. We need a ceasefire. We need a ceasefire. They did not. They did not. That's just propaganda to keep this war going. It's a genocide. We need a ceasefire. Will you please call for a ceasefire? You're going to get Hamas to quit shooting innocent civilians?

Well, it's the Israeli bombs that are killing thousands and thousands of people, including children and women every single day. Spoken like Senator Scott and Senator Cornyn, it just come from an AIPAC meeting. Well, you can't make this up that you're having a speech by Congressman Jamie Raskin against authoritarianism and somebody peacefully holding up a sign is pulled away by the police. It looks like a comedy if it weren't a tragedy. It looks like a scene from Seinfeld. It looks like a Saturday Night Live skit, frankly.

It just is so sad. Now, the senators, this is typical right now. They're arrogant and they're ignorant involved. They don't want to have to answer questions. It's like Kirby. Nobody wants any questions asked. It's all narrative to keep their game going. It's a racket. It's a trillion dollar a year racket. They've got a lot of military arms sales. They like it. It's the military industrial industry keeps these people in power. And anyone that is pesky enough to ask a question, just as bad behavior, because who asked you to ask us? We are the military industrial complex. Thank you. It's none of your business. That's the basic message. Professor Sachs from Phnom Penh, Cambodia, thank you very much for joining us,

my dear friend. I don't know where you'll be next week, but you know we will want the benefit of your analysis. We'll connect. Very good. All right. Take care. Thank you, my dear friend. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Coming up, as indicated, at 11 o'clock this morning, live from Moscow, Scott Ritter. At 2 this afternoon, Kyle Anzalone, a new young guest whose analysis we enjoy very much, coming to us from antiwar.com, the great Professor John Mearsheimer at three o'clock and the boys larry and ray that is johnson and mcgovern uh in the intel roundtable at four a busy day a day for you and by the way our subscriptions are are zooming up thank you very much if you haven't subscribed do it you'll get the notification and you get to watch uh the events that the mainstream media does not want you to see here on Judging Freedom. Thank you.