Poor Boe-Boe -- even with her greedy hands, so much remains beyond her grasp.
After Nancy Mace shrieked about Hunter Biden's balls and MTG held up photos of Hunter's balls, Lauren Boebert began yowling, "If I can't grope Hunter Biden's balls America is NO LONGER A DEMOCRACY" pic.twitter.com/f8snwCBqxU
The
small town of Limon on the eastern Colorado plains was slowly creeping
back to post-holiday life on the third day of 2024, exactly one week
after controversial Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert announced she’d be
switching from the state’s 3rd congressional district to this one, the
4th – hundreds of miles from her hometown and the communities she
currently represents.
The
swap made big news in political circles and on social media, the latest
in a long list of headlines grabbed by the 37-year-old new grandmother.
But in Limon’s hair salon, the lunch cafe, the quilting store … mention
of the fiery Republican’s name elicited blank stares. A flicker of
recognition ran across one woman’s face as she handled fabric in the
2,000-person enclave.
“Didn’t
she used to run ‘over there?’” the Limon resident said, using a
colloquial term for the other side of Colorado; then, upon hearing
Boebert had joined the race in the Republican primary, she snorted: “At
least she’s not a Democrat.”
That
derision of the left is a hallmark of the region Boebert hopes to
represent, a congressional district even more favourable to Republicans
than her current one; the GOP candidate is all but guaranteed to take
the seat in CD4. But the area is also filled with ultra-conservatives as
averse to outlandish behaviour as they are to brash outsiders; locals
tend to talk in terms of “here” or “there,” with Boebert decidedly
hailing from the latter.
[. . . ]
But
more than a half-dozen other Republicans are competing for the primary
in CD4, a few giving Boebert’s gun-toting image a run for its money –
with deeper local roots and no accompanying baggage. Boebert’s
abandonment of decorum at the 2022 State of the Union, berating the
President as he spoke and turning her back on the Cabinet, turned off
some straight-laced Republicans; exponentially more shook their heads
when the sitting congresswoman was thrown out of a Denver performance of
Beetlejuice in September for vaping, groping her date and generally
misbehaving. She made news yet again for all the wrong reasons this past
weekend when police were called during a public altercation with the
ex-husband she recently divorced – and his arrest on Tuesday on six
charges in their home county kept the drama in the headlines.
None of it jibes well with her purported promotion of Christianity and conservative family values.
“I won’t vote for her because of who she is and what she has done,” Randy Wallace, an unaffiliated voter, tells The Independent from behind the counter of his antique store in Elizabeth – 216 miles from the town where Boebert raised her boys.
He,
too, had not yet realized Boebert was switching districts to represent
the eastern parts of the state – a move Boebert made as her Democratic
challenger, to whom she lost by only 546 votes in the last election,
continues a well-funded and celebrity-endorsed campaign for the CD3
seat.
Schafir criticized Boebert for failing to concoct a platform that
dealt with any issues specific to her new district. “Her pitch is rooted
less in her new stumping grounds and more in conservative issues of
state or national interest,” he wrote, adding that her “pitch to
District 4 voters parrots boilerplate conservative talking points” and
that “rather than specific 4th District issues, Boebert hammers what
might be considered an indisputable fact: She’s a known commodity….”
As she reportedly continued to struggle to point out any differences
between the Third and Fourth districts, Boebert said she would learn on
the job: “My job is on-the-job training.”
But as Schafir noted, Boebert’s move has not been embraced by GOP leadership.
While Boebert believes her decision is a way to protect conservative
seats in the house by making room for a Republican more likely to win in
the Third, Colorado GOP Chairman Dave Williams (who was not even told
Boebert was switching districts until hours before she announced it
publicly) believes the opposite is true. He told the Herald he
believes any Republican could win the Fourth but that a Republican who
isn’t Boebert may struggle in the less conservative Third.
Friday, January 12, 2024. Another Mom For Bigotry goes down and flames
out, Iraq has an unidentified flying object and a
say-one-thing-to-the-people-whisper-something-else-to-the-US-government-privately
prime minister, South Africa lays out the case on genocide being
carried out in Gaza, and much more.
One of those wind down the weeks with a ton of topics to cover. Let's start with the US and some good news.
Let's all have a good laugh with Paul about Moms for Bigotry just living their own true selves and getting exposed for it. John Russell (LGBTQ NATION) reports:
Blair was arrested on January 5 and charged with seven counts of theft of property. Local ABC affiliate WATN reports
that she was caught on security camera “skip scanning” items at the
self-checkout at her local Target store in Collierville, Tennessee, on
seven separate dates between November 25 and December 20. According to
the Los Angeles Blade, the stolen items ranged in price from $63.38 to $140.49 and totaled $728.61.
You
know this wasn't her first time. And she thought she could sit in
judgment? Do we need to send some social workers out to check on her
children since clearly she is not just a flawed human being (as we all
are) but she's also a criminal.
Those
busybodies should have been told to shut up long ago. But you had
'left' posers who thought they were cool -- or at least said they were
cool and treated them like they were cool so that Mother Tucker Carlson
would bring them on his FOX "NEWS" show. Rights and LGBTQ+ people be
damned, those 'left' posers just wanted to sit down with Tucker on TV.
And I mean people like Glenneth. And I'm going to stop right there
because there's another name that I'm going to take the newsletter --
don't know if you caught this week but a certain woman apparently is no
longer Tucker's pal and realizes how toxic he is -- after going on his
FOX "NEWS" show repeatedly, after defending him when FOX "NEWS" rightly
fired him, after . . . And apparently now you just dispatch your
husband to act like none of that ever happened and have your husband
explain -- on streaming -- that you've always been opposed to Tucker.
An unidentified flying object
seen in a video flying over a U.S. operations base in Iraq has been
officially named "the jellyfish" UAP, according to UFO enthusiast Jeremy
Corbell.
The UFO enthusiast shared the "RAW footage" of the October 2018 sighting
on his YouTube channel on Tuesday. The video appears to show the
jellyfish-like object flying over a military base at a consistent speed
and moving in one direction. Corbell said the vehicle was filmed over
the Persian Gulf at night on an undisclosed day and time.
Corbell,
who has reported on UFOs for years, said the object moved through a
sensitive military installation and over a body of water, where it
eventually submerged. After around 17 minutes, Corbell said the UAP
reemerged from the water and flew suddenly at a speed far more rapid
than what technology could capture on camera.
"This
UAP of unknown origin displayed transmedium capability," Corbell posted
on X (formerly Twitter). "The origin, intent and capability of the
Anomalous Aerial Vehicle remains unknown."
Iraq’s prime minister privately told
American officials that he wants to negotiate keeping U.S. forces in the
country despite his recent announcement that he would begin the process
of removing them from the country.
Senior advisers to Iraqi Prime
Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani told U.S. officials that his
declaration was “an attempt to satisfy domestic political audiences” and
that Sudani himself “remained committed” to negotiating the coalition’s
future presence in Iraq, according to a Jan. 6 State Department cable
obtained by POLITICO.
So he's called
for US troops to be expelled publicly, he has declared US troops
assaults on Iraq's military are a violation of its national sovereignty
but that's just to appease the Iraqi people.
Interesting.
And telling. So we're still where we were back in late 2003. A puppet
government can't rule Iraq without US forces because it's not of the
people and by the people. In March, the 'new' Iraq will be 21 --
drinking age! That's how long US forces will have been on the ground to
impose the government on the people. It's not taking. How many more
years are going to be wasted on this? The Iraqi people have the right
to have a government that they want, that they choose.
Chenar Chalak (RUDAW) reported yesterday, "The
Iraqi government has started disseminating a survey through SMS,
asking citizens of the country whether or not they support the expulsion
of the US-led coalition against the Islamic State (ISIS), amid a series
of American retaliatory strikes targeting bases of government-linked
militia groups." What's the point? When you know the prime minister
has been lying publicly about this, what's the point in even taking a
minute of your time to vote in that nonsense poll?
NERMEENSHAIKH:
South Africa has accused Israel of acts of genocide against
Palestinians in opening remarks today at a historic hearing at the
International Court of Justice in The Hague. At the hearing, South
Africa demanded an emergency suspension of Israel’s aerial and ground
assault on Gaza, which it said was intended at bringing about, quote,
“the destruction of the population of the territory.” In a detailed
84-page document launching the case late last year, South Africa alleged
that Israel has demonstrated that intent. The International Court of
Justice is hearing South Africa’s arguments today, and we’ll hear
Israel’s response to the allegations on Friday. South Africa’s Justice
Minister Ronald Lamola addressed the court at the opening of the
hearing.
RONALDLAMOLA:
Madam President and distinguished members of the court, it is an honor
for me to stand here in front of you on behalf of the Republic of South
Africa on this exceptional case. “In extending our hands across the
miles to the people of Palestine, we do so in the full knowledge that we
are part of a humanity that is at one.” These were the words of our
founding president, Nelson Mandela. This is the spirit in which South
Africa acceded to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of
Crime of Genocide in 1998. This is the spirit in which we approach this
court as a contracting party to the convention. This is a commitment we
owe to the people of Palestine and Israelis alike.
As previously mentioned, 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.
NERMEENSHAIKH:
That was South Africa’s Justice Minister Ronald Lamola addressing the
court at the opening of the hearing. South Africa lawyer Adila Hassim
was next. She began by citing Israel’s bombing campaign in Gaza in her
opening argument.
ADILAHASSIM:
For the past 96 days, Israel has subjected Gaza to what has been
described as one of the heaviest conventional bombing campaigns in the
history of modern warfare. Palestinians in Gaza are being killed by
Israeli weaponry and bombs from air, land and sea. They are also at
immediate risk of death by starvation, dehydration and disease as a
result of the ongoing siege by Israel, the destruction of Palestinian
towns, the insufficient aid being allowed through to the Palestinian
population, and the impossibility of distributing this limited aid while
bombs fall. This conduct renders essentials to life unobtainable.
AMYGOODMAN:
South African lawyer Adila Hassim continued by laying out what South
Africa says was a series of genocidal acts, including mass killing,
displacement, denial of humanitarian aid, and more. She began on the
mass killing of Palestinians in Gaza.
ADILAHASSIM:
The first genocidal act committed by Israel is the mass killing of
Palestinians in Gaza, in violation of Article II (a) of the Genocide
Convention. As the U.N. secretary-general explained five weeks ago, the
level of Israel’s killing is so extensive that nowhere is safe in Gaza.
As I stand before you today, 23,210 Palestinians have been killed by
Israeli forces during the sustained attacks over the last three months,
at least 70% of whom are believed to be women and children. Some 7,000
Palestinians are still missing, presumed dead under the rubble.
Palestinians in Gaza are subjected to relentless bombing wherever
they go. They are killed in their homes, in places where they seek
shelter, in hospitals, in schools, in mosques, in churches, and as they
try to find food and water for their families. They have been killed if
they failed to evacuate, in the places to which they have fled, and even
while they attempted to flee along Israeli-declared safe routes. The
level of killing is so extensive that those whose bodies are found are
buried in mass graves, often unidentified.
In the first three weeks alone following 7 October, Israel deployed
6,000 bombs per week. At least 200 times, it has deployed 2,000-pound
bombs in southern areas of Palestine designated as safe. These bombs
have also decimated the north, including refugee camps.
Two-thousand-pound bombs are some of the biggest and most destructive
bombs available. They are dropped by lethal fighter jets that are used
to strike targets on the ground by one of the world’s most resourced
armies.
AMYGOODMAN:
South African lawyer Adila Hassim concluded her remarks by outlining
the need for an emergency suspension of Israel’s assault on Gaza.
ADILAHASSIM:
All of these acts, individually and collectively, form a calculated
pattern of conduct by Israel indicating a genocidal intent. This intent
is evident from Israel’s conduct in specially targeting Palestinians
living in Gaza; using weaponry that causes large-scale homicidal
destruction, as well as targeting — targeted sniping of civilians;
designating safe zones for Palestinians to seek refuge and then bombing
these; depriving Palestinians in Gaza of basic needs — food, water,
healthcare, fuel, sanitation and communications; destroying social
infrastructure — homes, schools, mosques, churches, hospitals; and
killing, seriously injuring and leaving large numbers of children
orphaned.
Genocides are never declared in advance. But this court has the
benefit of the past 13 weeks of evidence that shows incontrovertibly a
pattern of conduct and related intention that justifies a plausible
claim of genocidal acts.
In the Gambian Myanmar case, this court did not hesitate to impose
provisional measures in relation to allegations that Myanmar was
committing genocidal acts against the Rohingya within the Rakhine state.
The facts before the court today are, sadly, even more stark and, like
the Gambian Myanmar case, deserve and demand this court’s intervention.
Every day there is mounting, irreparable loss of life, property,
dignity and humanity for the Palestinian people. Our newsfeeds show
graphic images of suffering that has become unbearable to watch. Nothing
will stop the suffering except an order from this court. Without an
indication of provisional measures, the atrocities will continue, with
the Israeli Defense Force indicating that it intends pursuing this
course of action for at least a year.
NERMEENSHAIKH:
South African lawyer Adila Hassim. She was followed by attorney Tembeka
Ngcukaitobi, who outlined what South Africa said was clear evidence of
genocidal intent by Israel.
TEMBEKANGCUKAITOBI:
The intentional failure of the government of Israel to condemn, prevent
and punish such genocidal incitement constitutes, in itself, a grave
violation of the Genocide Convention. We should recall, Madam President,
that in Article I of the convention, Israel confirmed that genocide,
whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under
international law, and it undertook to prevent and to punish it as such.
This failure to prevent, condemn and punish such speech by the
government has served to normalize genocidal rhetoric and extreme danger
for Palestinians within Israeli society.
As MK Moshe Saada from the Likud party has said, the government’s own
attorneys shares his views that Palestinians in Gaza must be destroyed.
I quote: “You go anywhere, and they tell you to destroy them. In the
kibbutz, they tell you to destroy them. My friends at the state
attorney’s office, who fought with me on political issues in debates,
said to me, 'It is clear that we need to destroy all Gazans.'” “Destroy
all Gazans.”
Israel is aware of its destruction of Palestinian life and
infrastructure. Despite this knowledge, it has maintained — and indeed
intensified — its military activity in Gaza.
AMYGOODMAN:
Excerpts from South Africa’s arguments at the historic hearing at the
International Court of Justice in The Hague accusing Israel of acts of
genocide. When we come back, we go to Johannesburg and Jerusalem for response.
Genocide analysts and human rights lawyers, activists, specialists
around the globe—no strangers to human cruelty—have been shocked by both
the savagery of Israel’s acts and by the brazen public declarations of
genocidal intent by Israeli leaders. Hundreds of these experts
have sounded the genocide alarm in Gaza, noting the point-by-point
alignment between Israel’s actions and its officials’ stated intent on
the one hand, and the prohibitions enumerated in UN Genocide Convention
on the other.
The South African application “unequivocally condemns
all violations of international law by all parties, including the direct
targeting of Israeli civilians and other nationals and hostage-taking
by Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups.” But it reminds the Court:
“No armed attack on a State’s territory, no matter how serious—even an
attack involving atrocity crimes—can, however, provide any possible
justification for, or defense to, breaches of the [Genocide Convention]
whether as a matter of law or morality.”
Unlike many aspects of international law, the definition of genocide is quite straightforward.
To qualify as genocide or attempted genocide, two things are required.
First, the specific intent of the perpetrator to destroy all or part of
an identified national, ethnical, racial, or religious group. Second,
commission of at least one of five specified acts designed to make that
happen.
South Africa’s petition to the ICJ is filled with clear
and horrifically compelling examples, identifying Israeli actions that
match at least three of the five acts that constitute genocide when
linked to specific intent. Those include killing members of the group,
causing serious physical or mental harm to members of the group, and,
perhaps most indicative of genocidal purpose, creating “conditions of
life calculated to bring about their physical destruction.” As South
Africa documents, Israel has shown the world, at levels unprecedented in the 21st century, what those conditions look like.
For specific intent, South Africa points to dozens of statements
made by Israeli leaders, including the President, Prime Minister, and
other cabinet officials, and as well as Knesset members, military
commanders, and more.
Accustomed to decades of U.S.-backed
impunity, Israeli officials have been emboldened, describing openly
their intent to carry out “another Nakba,” to wipe out all of Gaza, to
deny any distinction between civilians and combatants, to raze Gaza to
the ground, to reduce it to rubble, and to bury Palestinians alive,
among many other similar statements.
AMYGOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh.
NERMEENSHAIKH:
We’re joined now by two guests to discuss South Africa’s historic
genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice in
The Hague. Today marked the first hearing out of two days of arguments,
with South Africa outlining its case that Israel has violated the 1948
U.N. Genocide Convention, saying its three-month assault on Gaza is
being conducted with the intent to bring about the destruction of
Palestinians as a group.
AMYGOODMAN:
In Jerusalem, Maha Abdallah is a Palestinian genocide scholar, a
graduate teaching assistant and Ph.D. researcher at the Faculty of Law
at the University of Antwerp. And joining us from Johannesburg, South
Africa, Kaajal Ramjathan-Keogh, South African human rights lawyer,
directs the Africa program of the International Commission of Jurists,
which is dedicated to defending human rights and the rule of law
worldwide.
We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Let’s begin in South
Africa with Kaajal. If you could start off by talking about the
significance of today’s hearing, that finished just before we went to
air? What is the International Court of Justice? How unusual is it to
bring a kind of case like this? If you could take it from there?
KAAJALRAMJATHAN-KEOGH: Yes, sure. Hi, everybody.
So, to talk about the hearing and the International Court of Justice,
the International Court of Justice is a world court which adjudicates
issues and cases between states. So it is different from the
International Criminal Court in that way. Where the ICJ — where the ICC
would prosecute individuals on international criminal concerns, the
International Court of Justice only deals with issues between state
parties. And this is the reason why South Africa has filed this case
before the International Court of Justice.
And it was a pretty remarkable hearing. You’ve said already about the
historical significance of this hearing. There have been previous cases
at the International Court of Justice dealing with genocide, but those
previous cases have not attracted as much attention and interest as this
particular case.
NERMEENSHAIKH: So, Kaajal, could you explain how often it’s been the case that a case has been brought to the ICJ
by a country that is not one of the parties involved in the conflict?
Because one thinks most recently of the case of Russia and Ukraine,
which Ukraine brought, or, in fact, the first genocide case that was
heard at the International Court of Justice, which, of course, had to do
with Srebrenica, the genocide of Bosnians in the Yugoslavia War.
KAAJALRAMJATHAN-KEOGH:
Yes. So, the court can deal with any issues. Issues of genocide, of
course, have — there have not been many cases of genocide brought before
the court. In this particular case, however, both South Africa and
Israel are members of the U.N. They’ve both signed on to the Genocide
Convention, and, as a result of their membership of the U.N. and
signature of the Genocide Convention, may be held responsible and have
responsibilities under this convention. And this is the reason which
established South Africa’s grounds for filing the case.
There have been other cases brought against member states who are not
— who have not signed the Genocide Convention. Those cases are more
difficult. It is more difficult, in particular, to try and enforce any
findings or to establish jurisdiction of the court in order to look into
those cases. But the court may still make preliminary findings, may
make other findings which are and can be very useful in trying to
protect individuals who are being affected by genocide and actions
connected to genocide.
NERMEENSHAIKH:
And so, if you could begin, Kaajal, just by explaining — of course, the
decision, as everyone has said, is likely to take years on the case
itself, on the merits — what are the provisional measures that South
Africa is calling for in the interim?
KAAJALRAMJATHAN-KEOGH:
Yes. So, essentially what South Africa is calling for is a ceasefire in
Gaza. They’ve set this out in a number of ways. They’re asking for the
blockade in Gaza to cease immediately. They’re asking for the cease of
the bombings and the actions which are causing the death of — killing of
Palestinians, destruction of their homes, expulsion, displacement,
blockade on food, water, medical assistance, as well as the imposition
of measures preventing Palestinian births by destroying essential health
services which are crucial for the survival of pregnant women and
babies. And these are all listed as genocidal actions in the suit. So,
there’s a whole range of actions which they’re calling for an immediate
cease on. And these are the provisional measures which South Africa
seeks at the current time.
AMYGOODMAN:
Maha Abdallah, you are a Palestinian genocide scholar. Can you explain
the significance of this going to the International Court of Justice,
and how people are responding in Israel and Palestine?
MAHAABDALLAH: Thank you for having me.
This is a historic moment for the Palestinian people in their pursuit
for justice and accountability, decades after the imposition of a
settler-colonial and apartheid regime against the Palestinian people
that has dispossessed and fragmented the Palestinians without
accountability and with near-total impunity. So, the fact that Israel
today stands on trial is very significant, very important. But, of
course, we recognize the possibilities and the different scenarios that
are forthcoming.
And the fact that Israel is on trial for the crime of genocide is
also significant because, as the application of the South Africa before
the International Court of Justice states, that the crime of genocide
and the alleged genocidal acts and omissions by the state of Israel are
part of a continuum. They do not happen in a vacuum. They’re part and
parcel of the ongoing Nakba imposed on the Palestinian people. And for
that, there needs to be accountability.
As for the reactions, unfortunately, I have not yet been able to
interact with many people. The hearing session just finished. But I know
that most of us Palestinians, whether in Palestine or in diaspora or in
exile, we have been waiting for this moment, and all eyes have been on
the ICJ, on The Hague today. And we have been
thinking about the Palestinians in Gaza and how they perceive the
current hearing sessions more than 90 days after complete devastation,
more than 90 days after significant and extreme and severe loss,
destruction and pain inflicted on the Palestinians there for the purpose
of the destruction of the group. And, of course, we think of
Palestinians in exile who have been also mentioned by the South African
ambassador in his introductory remarks, when he spoke about the denial,
the deliberate denial, of the Palestinian people’s right to
self-determination, which includes the right of return for Palestinians
in refugee camps across the neighboring countries.
NERMEENSHAIKH:
So, let me just turn — Maha, thank you for that — to Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who spoke Wednesday, one day before today’s
hearing at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, responding
to the hearing.
PRIMEMINISTERBENJAMINNETANYAHU:
I want to make a few points absolutely clear. Israel has no intention
of permanently occupying Gaza or displacing its civilian population.
Israel is fighting Hamas terrorists, not the Palestinian population. And
we are doing so in full compliance with international law. The IDF
is doing its utmost to minimize civilian casualties, while Hamas is
doing its utmost to maximize them by using Palestinian civilians as
human shields. The IDF urges Palestinian
civilians to leave war zones by disseminating leaflets, making phone
calls, providing safe passage corridors, while Hamas prevents
Palestinians from leaving at gunpoint, and often with gunfire. Our goal
is to rid Gaza of Hamas terrorists and free our hostages. Once this is
achieved, Gaza can be demilitarized and deradicalized, thereby creating a
possibility for a better future for Israel and Palestinians alike.
NERMEENSHAIKH:
So, that was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Maha, if you
could respond to what he said regarding the case that is now ongoing at
the International Court of Justice?
MAHAABDALLAH:
I think this is a baseless statement. And the statements over the past
13 weeks-plus, and even prior to the 7th of October, have been genocidal
in intent, have, you know, showcased how Israeli political leaders,
Israeli military leaders have the specific intent for — aiming for the
destruction of the Palestinian people, using different means and
methods, through different policies, practices, laws, military orders.
And the fact that there has been an apartheid regime imposed for 75
years, along with a belligerent occupation for 56 years, a blockade and
closure on the Gaza Strip, and the incarceration of an entire people, as
well, these are all precursors and drivers of genocide. And the
genocidal statements that we’ve been hearing since 13 weeks now cannot
be simply put aside or disregarded by a simple statement the night
before the hearing sessions start at the ICJ.
NERMEENSHAIKH:
And, Maha, could you explain — you know, what do you hope will come out
of this, knowing that, of course, a decision may take several years,
but there could be these provisional measures that are put in place,
even though they’re not, in fact, enforceable, the court does not have
the capacity to enforce the measures?
MAHAABDALLAH:
The most and foremost important thing to come out of this, from this
application and these proceedings at the moment, is for the court to
order Israel to stop its aggression, to stop its hostilities, to stop
its military operations against the Gaza Strip. And this is particularly
important considering the severity, the scale and the gravity of the
situation in the Gaza Strip, but also the failure of the international
system, of the international community, to come to a consensus and to
order Israel at the U.N. Security Council, but also in other spheres, to
push it to put an end to this genocidal aggression against the
Palestinians.
And as you said, the merits of the case, the actual decision of
whether there is genocide or not by the court, will take years. But for
the moment, what is mostly important is a need to stop this genocidal
aggression, to safeguard and to protect whatever is possible to save at
this moment of Palestinian life, of Palestinian dignity and of
Palestinian rights.
AMYGOODMAN:
Kaajal Ramjathan-Keogh, I wanted to ask you about Hamas. It is a
nonstate player here. How does it fit into this decision? And also,
because there isn’t enforcement, what is the role particularly of the
United States, since it sits on the U.N. Security Council, which, of
course, is related to the International Court of Justice as a U.N. body?
KAAJALRAMJATHAN-KEOGH:
Yes. The South African legal team set out very clearly the position of
Hamas in this particular matter. And what they said in their submissions
was that the International Court of Justice is there to adjudicate
matters and cases between states. Hamas is not a state, and therefore
Hamas is not part of this application. No claims have been brought
against Hamas, and no claims can be brought against Hamas at this
particular tribunal. There are other tribunals in which Hamas can be —
crimes against Hamas can be brought, but this is not the appropriate
tribunal for that particular issue. So, that deals with the issue of
Hamas.
Talking about the U.S. and their involvement in this case, the U.S.,
as we know, are longtime friends with Israel. If there is — in the event
that there is a final decision made by the court and the court makes
findings on genocide and genocidal intent against Israel, of course,
there is no immediate obligation on Israel to act on these findings, and
we don’t expect Israel to comply with these findings, which will then
lead to the matter being presented to the U.N. Security Council to try
and enforce this compliance. And at that point, with the U.S. being a
permanent member of the Security Council, they could, of course, use
their veto powers to block any actions against Israel. So that would be a
very serious challenge related to compliance of any findings of this
court.
NERMEENSHAIKH:
Well, Kaajal, apart from the U.N. Security Council, of course, the
person who leads the International Court of Justice, of the 15 judges,
the president is an American, Joan Donoghue, and the vice president is a
Russian, Kirill Gevorgian. So, if you could say — I mean, ostensibly,
the judges are supposed to be impartial, but in the most recent case
last year with Russia and Ukraine, the only countries to abstain from
the vote, which was otherwise 13 people voted for Russia withdrawing
from Ukraine, the provisional measure, China and Russia were the only
two who did not. So, if you could say, just in terms of precedents, do
judges, more or less, make decisions that coincide with the policies of
their countries, or is it the case that this is an exception?
KAAJALRAMJATHAN-KEOGH:
Yeah, yes. So, judges are supposed to be independent. We expect judges
to be independent. Judicial independence is the cornerstone of all
democracies. We require judicial independence to be able to support us,
and support us to claim our rights and to claim our democracies. It’s a
means — it’s a hugely important means of protection.
We’ve seen previously at the ICJ, in the Ukraine v. Russia
case, both the Russian and the Chinese judges offer dissenting
opinions. I would hope — I would very much hope that the American judge,
the president of the court, does feel an obligation to be independent,
properly independent, in this matter. There is, of course, no guarantee
of this. There is very little which can be done in the event of the
American judge dissenting, making findings which are not in line with
the majority of the court. And this is essentially the problem of the
International Court of Justice, in that it can take on a relatively
political slant in the decisions which it issues.
AMYGOODMAN:
And now their terms are up — the American, she has had a number of
positions at the State Department before, Joan Donoghue — are up in
February, so they could be up before this decision is released. Is that
right, Kaajal?
KAAJALRAMJATHAN-KEOGH:
I’m not aware of when her term is up, so I can’t really comment on
that. But the fact that she’s sitting on the issue of provisional
measures means that she will have some impact on what happens as the
court makes findings on provisional measures. And if, however, the court
decides to go into the merits of the case and proceeds with the matter,
then she will no longer sit on the case going forward, but we don’t
know who will replace her. So that’s an unknown, but it’s not guaranteed
that there won’t be U.S. influence on the case going forward.
NERMEENSHAIKH:
So, Maha Abdallah, just as we wrap up, if you could just give us your
final thoughts, your assessment of what the situation is right now in
Gaza, what you hope will come out of this?
MAHAABDALLAH:
Again, as I mentioned, I hope that this — that following the hearing
sessions and on the basis of precedent by the very same court, where it
has issued provisional measures within days’ or weeks’ time on, let’s
say, similar cases, but not entirely alike, that the court will order
the state of Israel to stop its aggression, to stop its military
operations against the Gaza Strip and its people.
The Gaza Strip, as we have seen, there is the large-scale
destruction, extensive killings taking place, ongoing and relentless
bombardment and killings that are taking place. The catastrophe is so
immense that we’re unable to understand or comprehend. Between the
starvation, the dehydration, the lack of medical facilities and
accessibility to medical supplies, to the most basic necessities for
life and dignity, and for life and survival even, together with the fact
that it’s under a total siege, blockade and closure that has
intensified since the 7th of October, the mass displacement and forcible
displacement and transfer of more than 1.9 million Palestinians into
areas that are also being targeted and bombed by Israel and its
military, all of these require immediate action, and immediate action
that should not have taken place today or yesterday, but three months
ago.
So, this is — we don’t have time. Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and
in the entirety of Palestine, we do not have the privilege of time. So
this is why the court — the proceedings before the court, as rightly
stated by South Africa in its application, they are of extreme urgency.
So the court must immediately act and respond to the urgent situation,
again, against the backdrop of the failure of the international system
and the international justice mechanisms, as well as the complicity, the
open-ended complicity, and support emboldening Israel’s action,
emboldening Israel’s atrocities and recurrence and intensification of
these violations and grave breaches and international crimes being
committed against the Palestinian people.
AMYGOODMAN:
Maha Abdallah, I want to thank you for being with us, Palestinian
genocide scholar, speaking to us from Jerusalem, and Kaajal
Ramjathan-Keogh, South African human rights lawyer, speaking to us from
Johannesburg.
For
many Palestinians, the global airing of South Africa’s case accusing
Israel of genocide in its military campaign against Hamas in Gaza was
not just welcome as a chance to stem the violence that has killed tens
of thousands. It was also a rare public reckoning of Israel’s occupation
of Palestinian territory and policies they view as apartheid, they
said.
“We
feel seen for the first time,” said Diana Buttu, a Palestinian human
rights lawyer and onetime adviser to Palestinian Authority President
Mahmoud Abbas. “It was no longer just Palestinians versus Israel; it was
another state putting its diplomatic relations on the line to make the
case.”
Supporters
gathered in Nelson Mandela Square in Ramallah, the West Bank, on
Thursday, waving Palestinian and South African flags after a South
African legal team presented its arguments to the tribunal in The Hague.
Social media came alive with celebratory postings.
Gaza remains under assault. Binoy Kampmark (DISSIDENT VOICE) points out, "Bloodletting as form; murder as fashion. The ongoing campaign in Gaza
by Israel’s Defence Forces continues without stalling and restriction.
But the burgeoning number of corpses is starting to become a challenge
for the propaganda outlets: How to justify it? Fortunately for Israel,
the United States, its unqualified defender, is happy to provide cover
for murder covered in the sheath of self-defence." CNN has explained, "The Gaza Strip is 'the most dangerous place' in the world to be a child, according to the executive director of the United Nations Children's Fund." ABC NEWS quotes UNICEF's December 9th statement, ""The Gaza Strip is the most dangerous place in the world to be a child.
Scores of children are reportedly being killed and injured on a daily
basis. Entire neighborhoods, where children used to play and go to
school have been turned into stacks of rubble, with no life in them." NBC NEWS notes, "Strong majorities of all voters in the U.S. disapprove of President Joe
Biden’s handling of foreign policy and the Israel-Hamas war, according to the latest national NBC News poll.
The erosion is most pronounced among Democrats, a majority of whom
believe Israel has gone too far in its military action in Gaza." The
slaughter continues. It has displaced over 1 million people per the US
Congressional Research Service. Jessica Corbett (COMMON DREAMS) points out, "Academics and legal experts around the world, including Holocaust scholars, have condemned
the six-week Israeli assault of Gaza as genocide." The death toll of
Palestinians in Gaza is now well over 20,000. NBC NEWS notes, "The vast
majority of its 2.2 million people are displaced, and an estimated half
face starvation amid an unfolding humanitarian crisis." NBC NEWS notes, "More than 23,700 people have been killed in Gaza since the war began,
according to the Palestinian Health Ministry. More than 60,000 have been
injured, and thousands more are missing and presumed dead. " In addition to the dead
and
the injured, there are the missing. AP notes, "About 4,000 people are reported missing." And the area itself? Isabele Debre (AP) reveals, "Israel’s military offensive
has turned much of northern Gaza into an uninhabitable moonscape. Whole
neighborhoods have been erased. Homes, schools and hospitals have been
blasted by airstrikes and scorched by tank fire. Some buildings are
still standing, but most are battered shells." Kieron Monks (I NEWS) reports, "More than 40 per cent of the buildings in northern Gaza have been damaged or destroyed, according to a new study of satellite imagery
by US researchers Jamon Van Den Hoek from Oregon State University and
Corey Scher at the City University of New York. The UN gave a figure of 45 per cent of housing
destroyed or damaged across the strip in less than six weeks. The rate
of destruction is among the highest of any conflict since the Second
World War." Max Butterworth (NBC NEWS) adds, "Satellite images captured by Maxar Technologies on Sunday reveal three
of the main hospitals in Gaza from above, surrounded by the rubble of
destroyed buildings after weeks of intense bombing in the region by
Israeli forces."
The Palestinian Red Crescent Society says its colleague Awni Khattab,
who was detained by Israel for 51 days, has been released and is back
in the Gaza Strip.
Khattab, the director of Khan Younis’s ambulance centre, was reunited with his family.
At least six members of the PCRS continue to be held by Israel for the 22nd day in a row, PRCS said.
And as many have feared, the war gets wider. CNN reports:
The US and UK militaries launched strikes against multiple Houthi targets in Yemen on Thursday.
It marks a significant response after the US and its allies warned the Iran-backed militant group it would bear the consequences of
repeated drone and missile attacks on commercial shipping in the Red
Sea, which the Houthis say are revenge against Israel for its military
campaign in Gaza.
The strikes come after the United Nations Security Council on Wednesday approved a resolution calling on the Houthis to "cease its brazen" attacks in the commercially vital waterway.
Though
the US has carried out strikes against Iranian proxies in Iraq and
Syria since the outbreak of the war in Gaza, this marks the first known
strike against the Houthis in Yemen. They come at a time of huge tension
in the Middle East as the US looks to ensure the war in Gaza does not
spill out into the wider region.
Iran,
which has avoided direct confrontation with the United States in the
months since the Oct. 7 Hamas attack plunged the region into war,
condemned the strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen as “a clear violation
of Yemen’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.” The intervention in
Yemen, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Nasser Kanani said, was an
attempt by the United States “to divert the attention of the people of
the world” from the ongoing war in Gaza.
Saudi
Arabia warned of the risks of escalation and said it is “closely
monitoring” the situation in the Red Sea and inside Yemen “with great
concern,” according to a Foreign Ministry statement.
Saudi Arabia, a close U.S. partner in the region, is trying to conclude
a peace deal with the Houthis and formally end its military
intervention in Yemen’s long civil war.
Badr Albusaidi, the foreign minister of Oman, wrote on social media
that the strikes in neighboring Yemen went “against our advice and will
only add fuel to an extremely dangerous situation. I urge all parties
to exercise restraint and focus on a ceasefire in Gaza now.”
In the United States, there was a mixed response from lawmakers.
House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Tex.) said in a statement
that he was “pleased the president, in coordination with our allies,
finally took action against the Iran-backed Houthis.” Others, including Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Val Hoyle (D-Ore.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) criticized President Biden for authorizing the strikes without congressional approval.
Mithil Aggarwal (NBC NEWS) notes that the Houthis (Yemeni Armed Forces) are vowing to retaliate. As the market goes, the retaliation has already begun. TORTOISE MEDIA notes, "il prices rose and the UK Treasury modelled further oil and gas price
spikes after US and British airstrikes on Houthi targets overnight. The
strikes on more than a dozen military targets in western Yemen have
drawn the Nato allies into an expanding Middle Eastern conflict – and
into a losing argument
about whether their actions are directly linked to Israel’s war on
Hamas." Oil prices spike as the US gets ready not just for winter but
for an expected cold wave throughout the country -- especially the
south. That's not go warm the hearts and minds of Americans who already
feel they're struggling economically and will now be faced with higher
energy bills.
There were many other topics we didn't get to, sorry.
Whoopi Goldberg fears that former President Donald Trump will “disappear” gay people if reelected in November.
The View co-host suggested as much earlier this week on Tuesday’s episode
of the ABC daytime chat show. During a discussion about the state of
the 2024 presidential race and young voters’ dissatisfaction with
President Joe Biden ahead of a likely rematch with Trump, Goldberg
attempted to draw a stark contrast between the two candidates.
“I’m here to say, it’s ours to lose,” she said. “This is what it’s all
about: either you want it to work forward-thinking, you want everybody
to have the ability to say how they feel, what they want, to move
forward, or you don’t.”
“Or you want somebody who says, ‘I’m gonna be, on day one, I’m gonna be a
dictator.’ Who says it to you, tells you: ‘I’m gonna put you people
away. I’m gonna take all the journalists, I’m gonna take all the gay
folks, I’m gonna move you all around and disappear you,’” she continued,
referencing comments Trump recently made
during an interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity. “If that’s the
country you want, you know who to vote for. If that’s not the country
you want, you have to make a decision.”
Whoopi's not wrong. I agree with her on this 100%. He was already an out of control criminal and if he gets back into the White House? It's going to be so much worse.
Thursday, January 11, 2024. Looking at the mind-set of some who play
the victim even when they aren't and use it to fuel their hatred, the
genocide trial began today, and much more.
I guess the question is about the silence -- the silence of
Julianna Margulies, Mayim Bialik, David Schwimmer and all the other hate
mongers who refuse to call out these attacks on journalists. Is it
because they're filthy liars. I read their whiny little letter and
thought, "Al Jolson was in Blackface. He was in Blackface." Yet what
they're whining about in the letter is that he played a character who is
first generation born in the US and is moving away from the traditions
of his immigrant parents -- demographically speaking, studies show
this but I guess sociology and demographics weren't courses you
studied.
But you ignore that
reality and instead try to turn a highly offensive film -- due to
Blackface -- into something else completely.
Have you no shame?
We're not linking to the piece of garbage letter that they signed but we will not how racist the ones signing that letter are.
An
e-mail to the public e-mail account makes a point (that friends made
over the phone -- first to make it was a Jewish director who -- unlike
the signers of that letter -- has actually been nominated for an Academy
Award) of noting that Al Jolson was Jewish. That is correct, the star
of THE JAZZ SINGER was Jewish. So was the director. So was the screen
writer.
This is important -- to the arts and to Gaza -- Gaza being the reason we are starting with it -- to note.
They
don't know demography, they don't know sociology and the writers and
signers of that letter -- most of whom never had a successful film
career and never, ever will -- maybe Josh Gad can star in THE JENNY
CRAIG STORY as her father? and David Schwimmer as grandpa can do that
same mugging and slow burn he does in pretty much every role when he's
not just furrowing his brow like he does when he switches from comedy to
drama -- the diversity and inclusion project of the Board of the
Academy of Arts and Sciences was about providing a seat at the table for
all.
There has been no historical (or modern) denial of Jewish people from Hollywood films.
There's never been a Jewish movie star in the US?
Except Barbra Streisand.
And Goldie Hawn.
And Paul Newman.
In
fact, let's note a few who starred in at least three movies from major
US film studios. Robert Downey Jr., Kate Hudson, Gene Wilder, Matthew
Broadrick, Dyan Cannon, Laurence Harvey, Jamie Lee Curtis, Robby Benson,
Tony Curtis, Barbara Hershey, Eddie Fisher, Dustin Hoffman, Shelley
Winters, Debra Winger, John Garfield, Luise Rainer, Woody Allen, Judd
Nelson, Ally Sheedy, Molly Ringwald, Mare Winningham, Sean Penn, Kevin
Kline, Madeline Kahn, Gilda Radner, Paul Rudd, Natalie Portman, Shia
LaBeouf, James Caan, Jonah Hill, Douglas Fairbanks, Bette Midler, Armie
Hammer, Jerry Lewis, Tony Randall, Rosanna Arquette, Lauren Bacall,
Gina Gershon, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Vic Morrow, Jason Segel, Lee Grant,
Jennifer Connelly, Alicia Silverstone, Judy Holliday, George Segal,
Richard Benjamin, Jack Black, Charles Grodin, Elliott Gould, Leslie Ann
Warren, Walter Matthau, Scott Glenn, Richard Dreyfuss, Albert Brooks,
Amy Irving, Carol Kane, James Franco, Ellen Barkin, Adam Sandler, Kyra
Sedgwick, Sarah Jessica Parker, Helen Hunt, Winona Ryder, River Phoenix,
Joaquin Phoenix, Gwyneth Paltrow, Adrien Brody, Elizabeth Banks and
Jake Gyllenhaal. And that's just off the top of my head.
Now
try doing the same with African-American actors who've starred in at
least three films from major US film studios. Or with Asian-Americans.
Or with . . .
They're whining -- Julianna and company -- about
how they were portrayed in a movie (a racist and offensive film to
African-Americans but they ignore that to whine about themselves). Oh,
boo hoo. You know I'm always the wrong one to whine to. Stand up for
others, absolutely, but cry for yourself never cuts it with me. So they
want to whine that in 2024, they feel misrepresented by a film made in
1927. But they can't be even honest -- again, this ties in the
slaughter going on in Gaza -- about what took place. No, they have to
whine that they have been victimized by others. Again, the star of the
film, the director, the writer -- all Jewish. In terms of racism, they
all failed. In terms of telling the story of 20th century immigration
in the US, they were on stronger ground.
Again, learn demography.
But
they want to find a new injury to be outraged about, even if they have
to go back nearly 100 years, and they want to blame it on others.
In
their laughable letter, they write, "The absence of Jews from
'under-represented' groupings implies that Jews are over-represented in
films, which is simply untrue."
Do you get it?
And
let me be clear, this sentence was pointed out to me -- this time from
a friend who is Jewish, I didn't get there on my own, and is an Academy
Award winning film producer.
In the minds of these
people -- this group of of 'wronged' Jews -- there is no equality.
There is only under or over represented.
Again, the issue is a seat at the table, a way to influence and ensure fairness in portrayals.
It's
not my fault if, for example, Clifford Odets is the Jewish person given
a seat and mails off all these letters to Jack Warner about how he's
trying to take the Jewish factor out of the script he's writing for
HUMORESQUE. That's not on me or anyone but Odets. (And, yes, that did
happen and is documented.)
Jewish business people and artists
have always been part of Hollywood's entertainment industry -- as
actors, as directors, editors, writers, producers, agents, managers,
crew members . . . MGM was formed by Louis B. Mayer, Samuel Goldwyn and
Marcus Lowe. Another three Jewish men formed COLUMBIA PICTURES: Joe
Brandt and Harry and Jack Cohn. Do we want to do PARAMONT? Adolph
Zukor, Jesse L. Lasky, Daniel Frohman and Charles Frohman.
They had a seat at the table and they were able to add their input. And many of them made historic and lasting contributions.
The
groups highlighted by the Board are groups who have suffered historical
discrimination in the Hollywood film community. That was the whole
point the Academy was trying to address. I do so love it, as a member
of the Academy, when those who aren't want to try to 'correct' what
we're doing. Again, David Schwimmer, you're never going to be a member
of the Academy -- no one in your peer group mistakes what you do for
actual acting -- let alone good acting.
But this group of
whiners can't tolerate inclusion or equality. They're of the opinion
that there is only under representation and over representation -- per
their own letter.
And doesn't that go to the historic treatment of
Palestinians and the lies that those who support that treatment tell
themselves and others?
A group of pampered whiny self-described
victims want to push other people around using their 'victimhood' --
that's the writers and signers of that ridiculous letter and it's those
who are okay and cheering on the murders of children, of the elderly, of
women, of men, of journalists, of medical professionals. It's the same
thinking -- where you only think about yourself.
That never
works for me. And it's not working for most of the people in this world
which is why, around the world, you see protests against the slaughter
of Gaza.
Israel
will offer its defence on Friday, but has previously said its actions
in the Gaza Strip are justified because it is responding to Hamas's
deadly attacks on 7 October.
But
speaking in court on Thursday, South Africa's Justice Minister Ronald
Lamola said that no attack "can provide justification for or defend
breaches of the [Genocide] Convention".
Israel is a signatory to the Genocide Convention of 1948, which defines genocide and commits states to prevent it.
The
ICJ is the United Nation's highest court, based in The Hague in the
Netherlands. Its rulings are theoretically legally binding on parties to
the ICJ - which include Israel and South Africa - but are not
enforceable.
Two Israeli lawmakers from right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu's Likud party doubled down Wednesday on calls to destroy or
depopulate Gaza, prompting an admonition from the country's attorney
general on the eve of an emergency hearing in the South African-led
genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice.
In an interview with Hakol Baramah radio, Deputy Knesset Speaker Nissim Vaturi said he did not regret his November call for Israel to "stop being humane" and "burn Gaza now."
"I stand behind my words," Vaturi said, according toThe Times of Israel. "It is better to burn down buildings rather than have soldiers harmed. There are no innocents there."
Referring to Palestinian civilians trapped in northern Gaza, Vaturi added that he has "no mercy for those who are still there."
"We need to eliminate them," he asserted.
On Tuesday, Israeli Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara cautioned government officials against making inflammatory statements like Vaturi's.
Baharav-Miara said officials are "obligated to act according to the principles of international law and the laws of war."
"Statements that call for, among other things, intentional harm to
uninvolved citizens, are against the prevailing policy and may
constitute criminal offenses, including incitement," she added.
Vaturi's remarks came as more than 90,000 Palestinians have been
killed, wounded, or left missing by 96 days of largely indiscriminate
Israeli bombardment of Gaza, where around 90% of the territory's 2.3
million residents have been displaced and most of its infrastructure has
been damaged or destroyed, according to Palestinian and United Nations officials.
Meanwhile, Haaretzreported
that Danny Danon, a former United Nations ambassador now serving in the
Knesset, said in a Wednesday radio interview that Israel must "not do
half a job" in Gaza.
That, Danon said, means "voluntary migration" of Palestinians from
Gaza—a euphemism, critics say, for an ethnic cleansing campaign akin to
the Nakba,
or "catastrophe," in which more than 750,000 Arabs were forcibly
expelled from Palestine during the war to establish the modern state of
Israel in 1948.
In November, Danon co-authored a Wall Street Journalopinion piece suggesting the ethnic cleansing of some of Gaza's population to Western countries that would accept the refugees.
Danon and Vaturi's remarks came as the International Court of
Justice prepared to convene an emergency hearing Thursday in The Hague
in a genocide case
against Israel filed by South Africa and backed by nations including
Pakistan, Turkey, Malaysia, Venezuela, Jordan, and Bolivia.
The filing in the World Court specifically mentions "direct and public
incitement to genocide by senior Israeli officials and others."
AMYGOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.
Several United Nations agencies, including the World Food Programme,
say Israel’s bombardment of Gaza could lead to a famine throughout the
entire Gaza Strip within six months, unless immediate action is taken.
Hundreds of thousands of displaced Palestinians are now in Rafah, and
many are waiting in line for hours for small amounts of food, as aid
agencies struggle to meet the demand.
MARIAM AL-AHMAD:
[translated] I came here to get food. I’ve been here since 9 a.m. just
to get a plate full of food, because the situation is very difficult. We
are from Gaza City, and we came to Rafah. The people of Rafah received
us and welcomed us, but the numbers are large, and the situation is very
difficult. … There is no money to buy food, and there’s no flour. We
have no money to buy anything at home. There is no gas or anything that
would help us to cook even a plate of lentils. We come here to get this
plate of food, and it is not enough.
AMYGOODMAN:
This comes as hundreds of trucks trying to bring aid to Gaza are backed
up for miles in Egypt at the Rafah border crossing and have been forced
to wait for weeks to enter. On Tuesday, British Foreign Secretary David
Cameron urged Israel to lift barriers on delivering humanitarian aid
into Gaza, citing, quote, “real widespread hunger.” Cameron was
cross-examined by the Scottish MP Brendan O’Hara.
BRENDAN O’HARA: Two or
three minutes ago, in answer, a reply to the chair, you said — and I
quote — “One of the things we’d like the Israelis to do is switch the
water back on.” Now, that says that they turned it off. It says that you
recognize they have the power to turn it on. Therefore, isn’t turning
water off and having the ability to turn it back on but choosing not to —
isn’t that a breach of international humanitarian law?
DAVIDCAMERON: It’s just something they ought to do, in my opinion.
BRENDAN O’HARA: No. Of
course they should do it. Every human being would say you don’t cut
people’s water supply off. But I’m asking you, in your position as
foreign secretary —
DAVIDCAMERON: Well, I don’t know. I mean —
BRENDAN O’HARA: — around a
point of international humanitarian law. If Israel have the power to
turn the water back on that they turned off, surely, that is a flagrant
breach of international humanitarian law.
DAVIDCAMERON:
Well, I’m not a lawyer. My view is they ought to switch it on, because
the north of Gaza, the conflict is now effectively over there, and so
getting more water and power into northern Gaza would be a very good
thing to do. You don’t have to be a lawyer to make a judgment about
that. You just have to be a human being.
AMYGOODMAN:
Last month, the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution to
immediately increase aid deliveries in Gaza, and Human Rights Watch
accused Israel of using starvation as a method of warfare, which
violates international humanitarian law.
Well, for more, we’re going to Tel Aviv. We’re joined by Sarit
Michaeli, international advocacy lead for the Israeli human rights group
B’Tselem, which has just published a new report,
“Israel is starving Gaza,” that says starvation is, quote, “not a
byproduct of war, but a direct result of Israel’s declared policy.”
Sarit, welcome to Democracy Now! Lay out exactly what you found and what you feel can be done about it.
SARITMICHAELI:
Well, in very basic terms, almost everyone in Gaza is hungry almost all
of the time. Two-point-three million people are surviving mostly on
sometimes one meal a day, people skipping meals in order to feed their
children, people busy constantly looking for the next meal, for the next
source of food for them and their families and children.
And all of this is happening in a place that is pretty much an hour’s
drive from here — right? — where supplying humanitarian assistance and
food and all the necessities, like water and other things that people
rely on, should not be a difficult problem. We’re not talking about some
sort of remote region internationally. We’re talking about an area that
is accessible, where the things that impede this provision of food for
people who are starving is a declared policy by Israel — the fact that
Israel isn’t allowing enough trucks in, the fact that Israel isn’t
providing the ability, the logistical infrastructure to actually drive
this food into Gaza through places where it’s possible to do, and many
other decisions taken by the Israeli government that are impacting this,
that are making it — making the amount of assistance that is coming
into Gaza simply a fraction of what the population need.
And, Amy, you quoted the international experts on this issue. Within a
month, they expect almost all of the residents of the Gaza Strip to be
up to what is phase three of this scale of horror of hunger. And this is
simply unacceptable when it’s very clearly preventable. And the things
that were said in the British Parliament by Minister Cameron are very
clearly a clarification that this is the result of Israeli policies and
actions. This is not just some sort of coincidence or just some
unfortunate byproduct of war.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well,
Sarit, I wanted to ask you: How is Israel controlling the food supply,
especially in Rafah, where Rafah leads into Egypt? So, how exactly does
it manage to continue to —
SARITMICHAELI: Right.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: — prevent trucks from getting in?
SARITMICHAELI:
So, Juan, let’s even look at the past situation. I mean, Gaza was on
the brink of collapse even before this war began with the horrific
October 7th attack by Hamas against Israelis, right? So, this has been a
situation of food insecurity since the beginning of the Israeli
blockade on Gaza almost 17 years ago. But the Israeli decisions to cut
off electricity, to cut off the water supply, that Israel sells Gaza, to
not allow all of the movement of the international humanitarian
provision of supplies, those decisions made it almost impossible, from
the start, for even bakeries to operate and provide for the people. And
now what we — so, the collapse was very quick and based on a very long
period of deprivation.
But now the issue really is that there needs to be hundreds of trucks
entering Gaza every day, and just a fraction of that is entering. This
is happening because the Rafah crossing is just not equipped for the
movement of goods. Goods should be entering Gaza through other border
crossings, that are generally with Israel, not with Egypt. Israel is
also prohibiting the provision of food purchased on the Israeli market,
so the aid agencies have to bring it from Egypt, which is even more
difficult. Plus, there are also many restrictions on the ability to
distribute it once it actually gets into the Gaza Strip. And then we see
these awful images of desperate people charging these provision convoys
that are coming in, and taking what they can, because they are simply
so desperate, and the food isn’t reaching some areas of Gaza. So you
have a situation where in some areas of Gaza things are only just bad,
whereas in others things are just absolutely atrocious. And this is not a
very large area.
So, certainly — and I think it’s recognized now by the international
community — the Israeli government is at fault, is responsible for this.
And this should lead to immediate international action, not simply
conversations with Israeli policymakers, but actually clear
clarifications that Israel is violating both its legal obligations
— i.e. this is a war crime — and also that this is simply an immoral way
to treat a civilian population.
AMYGOODMAN:
After a visit to the Rafah crossing between Egypt and Gaza, U.S.
Democratic Senators Jeff Merkley and Chris Van Hollen blasted the
Israeli process for screening the aid. Senator Van Hollen spoke to CBSFace the Nation. This is what he said.
SEN. CHRISVANHOLLEN:
Many items that should be allowed to go into Gaza — water sort of
filtration systems, other systems like that — were in a warehouse of
rejected items that we visited. While we were there, we saw a truck
turned away that had a big box from UNICEF,
which is, of course, the U.N. organization that helps children. It was a
unit to help with water desalinization. It was rejected. And when one
item on a truck is rejected, the entire truck is rejected. The other big
issue is within Gaza, the so-called deconfliction process, which is
just a fancy name for those who are providing humanitarian assistance to
have the confidence that they can deliver it without being killed.
AMYGOODMAN:
If you can talk more about this, Sarit? Again, the senator, Van Hollen,
is the one who has also called for the release of more information
about the Israeli sniper who murdered Shirin Abu Akleh on May 11th,
2022, in Jenin, in the occupied West Bank.
SARITMICHAELI:
Yeah, absolutely, Amy. Well, we certainly appreciate the leadership
that Senator Van Hollen and, actually, Senator Merkley are showing on
this issue. And it is absolutely crucial that U.S. lawmakers, both from
the more progressive part of the Democratic Party but also from the
mainstream, security-oriented, kind of more established part of the
Democratic Party, are engaging with President Biden to demand action on
this issue — simply an unconscionable situation that is unfolding in
front of us.
Now, I’d like to refer to the second part of Senator Hollen’s
discussion of the dangers inside of Gaza. Yes,, absolutely, there’s been
another update by the office of — the U.N. Office for the Coordination
of Humanitarian Affairs discussing an additional rejection by the
Israeli authorities of another attempt to coordinate the transfer of
medical goods into hospitals in the northern Gaza Strip. This was only
the day before yesterday, apparently. So, we’re seeing that there are
simply so many difficulties in trying to bring the aid, deliver the aid,
with safety for the aid providers, obviously, in this area that is
bombed.
And this brings us to the essential issue, which is that there needs
to be a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip. There needs to be a halt to Israeli
airstrikes and bombardments in order for this food and aid and
assistance — and not only food; medical supplies and other necessities
have to be provided. And this is one — the continuation of the
hostilities is making this provision far too dangerous and impossible
currently. This is one other reason why we need this to stop.
B’Tselem has called for a ceasefire. But, of course, the most
important reason for this to stop is to stop the killing of civilians,
of women and children and human beings in the Gaza Strip, in a way that
absolutely is disproportionate to what is facing Israel right now, and
to the policies of, basically, airstrikes bombing residential homes. All
of this is one — you know, and the huge death toll, 23,000 Gazans and
counting, as a result, you know, that can only be described as a revenge
attack after the horrific death toll that Israelis have suffered. But
we simply cannot accept. You know, it’s certainly not moral, and it’s
certainly not legal, that we inflict such a degree of suffering on
Gazans — we Israelis — regardless of how much we have suffered and how
horrific we have been affected by this. There is simply no justification
for the continuation of this Israeli attack on Gaza, and it has to
stop. There has to be a ceasefire.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Sarit, I
wanted to ask you — you’re talking to us from Tel Aviv. How aware are
Israelis of the catastrophic situation so close to where most of them
live? And is there any significant portion of the population that cares?
SARITMICHAELI:
Well, unfortunately, Juan, the situation is very, very depressing and
just painful when we look at the responses of many Israelis, possibly
even the majority of Israelis, to what we see now in Gaza. I think the
majority of Israelis still support what we are doing there. There is
very little protest or very little rejection of the methods that Israel
is employing in its attack against the civilian population of Gaza. The
Israeli media doesn’t really broadcast much information about the
suffering of Gazans, the devastation, the utter devastation, of
infrastructure and the loss of homes, and human beings being killed on a
daily basis, on an hourly basis.
But one of the saddest aspects of this is that even when people are
aware of it, there are so many politicians and influencers and people
who are simply rejecting any need to respect the humanity of people in
Gaza. And unfortunately, some of the people who are aware of the huge
price, the horrific toll that Gazans are paying, are not — you know, are
simply OK with it. And this is one of the most depressing aspects of
what is going on now in terms of the total dehumanization of Gazans
among many people in Israel.
There are — I should mention there are Israelis who are opposed to
this situation. There are Israelis who are calling to recognize the
humanity of Gazans. But we are in the minority, unfortunately.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Yeah, we
have less than a minute left, but I wanted to ask you, quickly — you’ve
also been monitoring the violence in the West Bank, that has gotten far
less attention. Could you talk about what you’ve chronicled?
SARITMICHAELI:
Absolutely, yes. So, since October 7th, there has also been a massive
increase in the violence by Israeli soldiers and also security forces
and Israeli settlers against Palestinians in the West Bank. It has led
to a really large number of Palestinians killed by soldiers and by
Israeli settlers. It has led to takeovers of land by settlers, to the
removal, to the forcible transfer of Palestinian herding communities
from very large parts of the West Bank. It’s led to, you know, the total
destruction of the olive harvest, for example, as a coordinated
campaign by settlers to damage the Palestinian economy. And all of these
things are happening with very little international attention.
And again, this has got to end. There has to be a recognition of what
is going on throughout the West Bank, of Israeli actions there. And as
we call when it comes to the situation in the Gaza Strip, there has to
be international action to hold Israeli policymakers accountable for
their decisions that have led to these horrific results, horrific
outcomes.
AMYGOODMAN:
Sarit Michaeli, we have to leave it there. We thank you so much for
being with us, with the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem. I’m Amy
Goodman, with Juan González.
Gaza remains under assault. Binoy Kampmark (DISSIDENT VOICE) points out, "Bloodletting as form; murder as fashion. The ongoing campaign in Gaza
by Israel’s Defence Forces continues without stalling and restriction.
But the burgeoning number of corpses is starting to become a challenge
for the propaganda outlets: How to justify it? Fortunately for Israel,
the United States, its unqualified defender, is happy to provide cover
for murder covered in the sheath of self-defence." CNN has explained, "The Gaza Strip is 'the most dangerous place' in the world to be a child, according to the executive director of the United Nations Children's Fund." ABC NEWS quotes UNICEF's December 9th statement, ""The Gaza Strip is the most dangerous place in the world to be a child.
Scores of children are reportedly being killed and injured on a daily
basis. Entire neighborhoods, where children used to play and go to
school have been turned into stacks of rubble, with no life in them." NBC NEWS notes, "Strong majorities of all voters in the U.S. disapprove of President Joe
Biden’s handling of foreign policy and the Israel-Hamas war, according to the latest national NBC News poll.
The erosion is most pronounced among Democrats, a majority of whom
believe Israel has gone too far in its military action in Gaza." The
slaughter continues. It has displaced over 1 million people per the US
Congressional Research Service. Jessica Corbett (COMMON DREAMS) points out, "Academics and legal experts around the world, including Holocaust scholars, have condemned
the six-week Israeli assault of Gaza as genocide." The death toll of
Palestinians in Gaza is now well over 20,000. NBC NEWS notes, "The vast
majority of its 2.2 million people are displaced, and an estimated half
face starvation amid an unfolding humanitarian crisis." THE GUARDIAN notes, "A total of 23,210 Palestinians have been killed and 59,167 have
been wounded in Israeli strikes on Gaza since 7 October, the Gaza health
ministry said in a statement on Tuesday." In addition to the dead
and
the injured, there are the missing. AP notes, "About 4,000 people are reported missing." And the area itself? Isabele Debre (AP) reveals, "Israel’s military offensive
has turned much of northern Gaza into an uninhabitable moonscape. Whole
neighborhoods have been erased. Homes, schools and hospitals have been
blasted by airstrikes and scorched by tank fire. Some buildings are
still standing, but most are battered shells." Kieron Monks (I NEWS) reports, "More than 40 per cent of the buildings in northern Gaza have been damaged or destroyed, according to a new study of satellite imagery
by US researchers Jamon Van Den Hoek from Oregon State University and
Corey Scher at the City University of New York. The UN gave a figure of 45 per cent of housing
destroyed or damaged across the strip in less than six weeks. The rate
of destruction is among the highest of any conflict since the Second
World War." Max Butterworth (NBC NEWS) adds, "Satellite images captured by Maxar Technologies on Sunday reveal three
of the main hospitals in Gaza from above, surrounded by the rubble of
destroyed buildings after weeks of intense bombing in the region by
Israeli forces."
Isaiah's THE WORLD TODAY JUST NUTS "The Debate" went up last night and the following sites updated: