Like Maria Said Paz: Cray-Cray Boe-Boe

Saturday, January 13, 2024

Cray-Cray Boe-Boe

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
— Paul Rudnick (@PaulRudnickNY) January 11, 2024

Isn't Paul Rudnick hilarious? Boe-Boe's just a sad and dirty joke. Sheila Flynn (INDEPENDENT) reports:

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.

Molly Sprayregen (LGBTQ NATION) adds of Boe-Boe's new district:

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.

"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):

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.

Iraq's next. Anthony Robledo (USA TODAY) reports:

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."

Other news includes the announced plan for a Saturday vote in Parliament on a new speaker as they seek to fill the position vacated when the country's Supreme Court voided then-Speaker of Parliament's Mohammed al-Halbousi's MP membership November 14th.

Not that it matters since the government can't seem to do much of anything. Lara Seligman and Erin Banco (POLITICO) report:

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?

Now let's move to the assault on Gaza. This is from yesterday's DEMOCRACY NOW!

NERMEEN SHAIKH: 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.

RONALD LAMOLA: 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.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: 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.

ADILA HASSIM: 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.

AMY GOODMAN: 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.

ADILA HASSIM: 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.

AMY GOODMAN: South African lawyer Adila Hassim concluded her remarks by outlining the need for an emergency suspension of Israel’s assault on Gaza.

ADILA HASSIM: 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.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: 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.

TEMBEKA NGCUKAITOBI: 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.

AMY GOODMAN: 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.

At COMMON DREAMS, Craig Mokhiber Phyllis Bennis explain:

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 21^st 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.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: 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.

AMY GOODMAN: 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?

KAAJAL RAMJATHAN-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.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: 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.

KAAJAL RAMJATHAN-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.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: 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?

KAAJAL RAMJATHAN-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.

AMY GOODMAN: 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?

MAHA ABDALLAH: 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.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: 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.

PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: 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.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: 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?

MAHA ABDALLAH: 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.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: 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?

MAHA ABDALLAH: 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.

AMY GOODMAN: 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?

KAAJAL RAMJATHAN-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.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: 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?

KAAJAL RAMJATHAN-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.

AMY GOODMAN: 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?

KAAJAL RAMJATHAN-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.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: 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?

MAHA ABDALLAH: 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.

AMY GOODMAN: 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.

Next up, an exclusive report in The Guardian revealing how carbon emissions from Israel’s war on Gaza will have an immense effect on the climate crisis. Back in 20 seconds.

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."

There were many other topics we didn't get to, sorry.

The following sites updated: