Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar5/9/24: Biden Threatens HALT Israel Weapons, Sen Says Put Protesters On No Fly List, UN Expert Responds To Biden Smear
Krystal and Saagar discuss Biden threatening to halt weapons to Israel over Rafah, Senator calls for protesters to be on no fly list, and UN Human Rights lawyer Francesca Albanese joins to discuss Israel and Gaza.
To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: https://breakingpoints.supercast.com/
Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/
Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of ways we can up our game for this critical election.
We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent.
Coverage that is possible.
If you like what we're all about, it just means the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that, let's get to the show. Good morning everybody, Happy Thursday. We have an amazing show for everybody today.
What do we have, Crystal, indeed we do.
We have some big breaking news to talk to you about this morning. President Biden on CNN last night saying he would hold some arm shipments to Israel if they launch a quote major invasion in Darrafa. What exactly does that mean? What are the implications, what are the reactions? A lot to dig into there. We also have some updates for you on the former president Donald Trump catching additional legal breaks.
So we'll take a look at that.
Meanwhile, RFK Junior it was revealed suffered a I guess you would say, rather unique medical conditionvolving his brain.
And literal reworms. Yeah, not to joke.
Every joke has already been made. It's literally true. Write that down Rio his response. All of that good stuff.
Also really fascinating report and some new numbers about how there's been a nature population shift in the last several years out of cities and into rural America. You know, the question was after the pandemic, would that shift back, because we saw that during.
The pandemic with the remote work boom.
It doesn't look like it. It looks like this trend is kind of here to stay. So obviously that has huge implications, and we are really excited to be joined today by the UN Special Rappertur for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories. Francesca Albanize is going to join us for an extended interview. Obviously incredibly relevant to talk to her today as a potential invasion into Rafa Loom.
She's been taking a look.
Not only she published a report saying that there were reasonable grounds to believe Israel is committing genocide in the Gaza strip, but she's also been taking a close look at the humanitarian situation and the status of AID, what's going in, what's not going in. So really excited to get to talk to her and hear her perspective on all of these things today.
Yeah, it's gonna be interesting.
To my knowledge, hasn't done a lot of interviews, especially with a lot of media outlets, and we've been working on this for quite some time.
So that's gonna be fun.
Before we get to that, though, we have interesting teas that we can give all of you counterpoints.
Hosted another one of their debates.
It will be dropping for premium subscribers tonight and it will be publicly available on Friday. But the important thing here is about what it was revealed. So it was Ilia Shapiro versus Glenn Greenwald on the topic of free speech. Those of you who may not know, Ilia Shapiro is a well known figure here in Washington, works at the Manhattan Institute, previously at the Cato Institute, a libertarian constitutional lawyer, but recently has taken very much of a turn to try and I'll just say this, he's taken a turn to go against some principles that I think previously would have rubbed up against free speech.
I don't put that in the kindest way possible.
Glenn Greenwald debated him also on the subject, specifically, not only around free speech, but whether the government and should be cracking down on organizations that are calling for ceasefires back in campus protests and all that.
So we have a little teas that we can show all of you. Let's take a lesson.
Glenn asked about Jewish Voices for Peace. That's a fact question, as lawyers would call it. This is why Attorney General of Virginia, Jason Miaris, among others, are investigating the various contacts between these organizations.
And that doesn't bother you that Jewish Voice for Our Peace are being criminally investigated. This is righting attorney generals who love Israel. That doesn't bother you.
Jewish Voices seems to me like the Holy Roman Empire, and that it's neither holy, nor Roman nor an empire. JVP is neither Jewish nor voices nor for.
People cares what you think of their opinions.
They have every right to engage in the American student.
I'm not saying they should be prosecuted for their speech. I'm saying if investigations reveal that they're part of a terrorist financing network and organizational instructure, then they should be thrown off campus as a corporate body. This is not about the rights of students or what they're saying whether they should be prosecuted for that, and stop conflating those kinds of issues.
No, but first of all, they have been thrown off many campuses, and the argument is the same theory that rondasantis use. If you accuse student student groups that are in favor of the propolicanting cause of being guilty for material support of terrorism, which is what you have to claim in order to justify banning them from campus. Otherwise it's such an obvious violation of the First Amendment free speech if you don't have another pretext. And that's why fire dot org took such great offense to what DeSantis did in other colleges as well. If you if you claim they're guilty of material support for terrorism as it grounds for banning them from campus, obviously you're accusing them of felonies. That's what material support. You're not allowed to give material support.
Wow.
Anyways, let's just say there's a lot more that came from this over an hour, so if you want to watch it and support the work the Counterpoints is doing in our expansion breakingpoints dot com. Thank you everybody who has been I think they've just been putting out excellent content.
They have the Don Lemon thing, I.
Mean, the Destiny debate was good, this in particular, So this is just more of what you can expect.
And people are starting to take notice, right.
They understand this is a place where we can convene things and they're really leaning into that. So congratulations to them, and thank you to everybody for supporting them.
Yeah, thank you guys for making this happen. It's also cool now we're Monday through Friday. Yeah, I haven't watched this one yet. I'm very much looking forward to it. I'm less familiar with Ilia obviously. Glenn we know very well, and he's never afraid of a fight.
No, he's and you know, CoP's doing it two for showing up. A lot of people won't do it, so I'll at least he at least showed up. It went up against Glenn, who you know, who's going to give it to.
Me exactly whatever, Like whether you agree or disagree with Glenn, I think everyone respects his debating abilities, so to show up and rop your position, listen. Respect for being willing to do that. And I'm personally looking forward to having a chance to take a look. So, like Soccer said, if you guys want to get that early, it's going to drop tonight for premium subscribers. It'll be available for everyone tomorrow. With that, let's go ahead and get to the news of the day. So the big breaking news this morning, and this is quite significant.
President Biden gave.
An exclusive interview to CNN's Aaron Burnett last night made some big news. This comes in the wake of the revelation that the US had paused a shipment of two thousand pound bombs that was slated to go to Israel.
That news leaked out.
President Biden in this interview, revealing that he is saying if they launch a major invasion into Rafa, he will block additional weapons shipments.
Let's take a listen to exactly what he had to say.
I want to ask you about something happening as we sit here and speak, and that of course, Israel is striking Rafa. I know that you have paused, mister President, shipments of two thousand pound US bombs to Israel due to concern that they could be used in any offensive on Rafa. Have those bombs, those powerful two thousand pound bombs been used to kill civilians in Gaza.
Have been killed in Gaza as a consequence of those bombs and other ways in which they go after population centers. And I made it clear that if they go into Rafa, they haven't gone on Raffa yet, they go into Rafa, I'm not supplying the weapons that have been used historically to deal with Rafa, to deal with the cities, to deal with that problem. We're going to continue to make sure because you're less secure in terms of Iron Dome and their ability to respond to attacks that came out of you the UH Middle least recently. But it's it's just wrong. We're not going to We're not going to supply the weapons and the artillery shells used that have been.
Used artillery shells as well, Yeah, artillery shells.
So just to understand what they're doing right now in Rafa, is that not going into Rafa as you don't.
They haven't gone in the population centers. What they did, it's right on the border and it's causing problems with right now. In terms of with Egypt, which I've worked very hard to make sure we have a relationship and help. But I've made it clear to BB in the work Cabinet, They're not going to get our support if in fact they're going these population centers.
So he says here they haven't gone into Rafa, which is a little confusing because they have. But now we're kind of adjusting where the redline was. Previous it was no invasion of Rafa. Then it was no invasion that didn't account for humanitarianism. Now it's no incursion into major population centers. So a lot of questions about exactly what this means Sager, but you know, obviously very noteworthy. We'll show you in a minute after I get Sager's reactions some of the already you know, freak out from the right, certainly total freak out from the Israeli side. Also very noteworthy that he says these two thousand pound bombs have been used to kill civilians, which raises the question also of okay, so if you knew that, why did we move Haaven and Earth to pass billions of dollars just a couple of weeks ago more in aid to ship more of these weapons that you are acknowledging have been used to massacre civilians?
So what do you make of these comments?
It's just sheer incoherence because it is.
The State Department just yesterday put on permanent pause any report that would prove exactly what the President of the United States just said. There's no substantive difference between Israeli action in Rafa than there would be in communist or in Gaza City. So what you know, change has happened here. If anything, you've empowered the Israeli right, the Israeli military actions, We've reaped the worst rewards, not only of civilian casualties, but of international standing to Israel itself, to the United States and its international community, obviously domestic turmoil here at home, and now all of a sudden we seem to be changing things up as if they've been going. It just it makes very little sense and it actually sticks with Biden to me, which is its incoherent. It has no basis in actual like and stratage in terms of where things are going. There's a question too as to whether this is just being fed up over a hostage deal, whether this is posturing in terms of negotiation out look, I mean, I want to be clear and I want to say this. I do support withholding or conditioning aid based upon what the US does.
That seems like a basic thing.
But as we'll show you with some of our Republican neocons here in Washington, that is anathema. Whenever you're an ally, apparently you're owed anything that you could ever want from the US Treasury. Really only oh well, we'll get to that. Well, you know, no, that's a Ukraine Erasier crystal, of course, and that's important, you know, to try and to underscore this. So I would put this in the same way that Biden was on Afghanistan, where you know, he eventually decides to pull out. He does frankly and like one of the worst most domestically politically disastrous ways possible. Prior to that extends US troop levels in Afghanistan, but then it backs Ukraine to the hill. He just has no coherence or strategy in what he's being built upon. So I will at least endorse the idea of conditioning AID. Well, I support that, not just Asrael, by the way, all nations that the United States were to give to. So I don't know of a mixed bag. I wonder what you think about it.
Yeah, I mean there's a lot to say about this.
First of all, we don't even really know what I mean right, because he's out here saying like, well, they haven't gone into run.
Well they have gone into profas.
So is this red line any more meaningful than previous ones.
We don't know. We don't know.
Apparently, you know, the behind the receipt scenes reporting I was reading Peter Baker this morning the New York Times, is that the US wanted to quietly pause these shipments as a use of private leverage against Israel. The Israelis leaked the news in advance of Holocaust Remembrance Day. Apparently, this interview with Biden was it was intentional that this came after he gives the big Holocaust remembrance speech, once again painting all the college protesters, who he apparently agrees with in some respects as anti Semites. And so he does that, then he comes out and makes this announcement, and I think it just it's to be determined if it means anything.
At all, I guess is what I would say.
And there's also a lot of reporting, you know, people behind the scenes saying, listen, this doesn't mean that Israel's not going to get every penny of the whatever fourteen billion dollars that was just passed for it. He makes sure to say offensive weapons. So there's a limit to you know, in terms of how far he's willing to go in terms of conditioning AID, if that AID even is conditioned. So what is a major invasion? What are we counting as a population center? We don't have a lot of clarity with regards to any of that, so TBD whether this means anything at all, I think another you know, you just have to ask, like if you know that our two thousand pound bombs are being used to mass or civilians, which anyone who's looking at this conflict knows and has known for literally months. I mean, when was it that it got dropped on that refugee camp, killing hundreds of people to possibly maybe you get one Hamas fighters.
I'm that in November that I want to say that.
So we've known this for a long time. So the most obvious question is what the hell took so long? Most of the Gaza Strip is completely destroyed. Gaza City con unis just rubble.
There's more rubble.
Gaza is tiny, right, It's like the size of Manhattan basically, and there is more rubble in the Gaza Strip than there is in all of Ukraine. Okay, in a much shorter period time and a much, much, much much smaller land mass forty thousand Palestinians. We really don't know the toll, to be honest with you, dead all six hundred thousand kids in Rafa are injured, sick, malnourished. You've got babies starving to death, and so you just look at it. You're like, I'm with you, said, of course, yes, this is the correct position.
What the hell took you so long?
I think one thing we have to say is the protests seem to be putting pressure on them, like they seem to be feeling certainly the political heat from the protest movement across the country, from the fact that, you know, public opinion and especially Democratic opinion, is very much against Joe Biden on this. There's a new poll yesterday from ZTEO. Fifty seven percent of Democrats say yes, it's a genocide, only some twenty percent say it's not. Firmatively say it's not. So he's dramatically at odds with the Democratic Party. He knows this is a political problem for him. I think that's why this is happening right now. He is very reluctant to make any change in the unconditional support of Israel policy. And so I think you have to say that that political pressure is part of why you're getting at least this rhetorical shift, and what appears to have been more than a rhetorical shift at least in terms of pausing one shipment for now.
I think it's possible it could be.
I'm actually not sure how much it has to do with the domestic political pressure. I'm starting to think a lot of it could also be in terms of international pressure, because what we should remember is that Arafa c invasion cross and all that is a genuine demarcation point, both for Turkey and for Egypt, and so there is and has been a lot of leaking behind the scenes. I don't I think you might have seen this as well. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Saudi Arabia used the term genocide for the very first time actually after the Rafa invasion.
So there was the threatening of total.
International isolation of the US from Saudi Arabia, from Egypt and from others. And the Egyptians in particular have been putting huge and tremendous pressure behind the scenes because it is a breach of the nineteen seventy two agreements. I'm not saying that domestic political pressure didn't have anything. It's a confluence events like anything else. I do think though, we shouldn't, you know, we should remember that the US position in the Middle East has been so degraded now at this point that this really could have been a genuine break, you know, to actually see a full on invasion of Rafa. For we already saw with the Saudis, which is a key strategic ally for the US, and obviously they've got their finger on the Opec oil and Biden doesn't want to screw with that. The Egyptians and the NATO, I mean, one of the things that we can't forget either is Turkey after the invasion of Rafa was announced, pulled all trade with Israel. It was a major, major point in terms of international politics. So I think that that was a significant driver of the fact as well.
Maybe, but in my experience, the US response doesn't really care that much about international opinion or like, you know, what's out of like what the Egyptians saying, we fund them significantly to we give them a huge amount of aid, and certainly politicians do have a track record of caring about their own re election prospects. So don't know, like you said, could have been a confluence of factors. But I think the fact that the protests have become so heated, such a divisive issue within the Democratic Party, and that Democratic public sentiment has gone so aggressively against Joe Biden, public sentiment in general has gone so aggressively against Joe Biden, I would say, has to be considered as a factor here, you know, in terms of the response.
Ryan made this point on Twitter yesterday, which is so true.
Like Joe Biden has been the most pro Israel president I think in American history. I think it's hard to argue otherwise. At every turn he has given them everything they wanted, from diplomatic cover obviously, the weapons and the aid. He's gone out and gone with bb Netanya who's lines neraring college kids as Nazis. Like every step of the way, it has been the bear huck. And yet the minute that he even threatens to pause weapons shipments, even you know, to condition aid at all, everyone who's pro is Or, including John Fetterman, all of the Mike Johnson, Mitch McConnell, et cetera.
They turn like that.
I mean, he doesn't get any credit from them about the fact that he did unconditionally support them. It was the most pro Israel president that we've literally ever had in history. The Minity changes man that the knives are out for him. Let's put this up on the screen. You've got Bill Ackman, billionaire's been just you know, causing all kinds of trouble and really involved in the whole campus situation, funded those violent counter protesters in UCLA.
Says crazy. This is one of.
The worst acts against an ally of a sitting president ever. Hopefully this means he won't be sitting for much longer. You've gotten Mitt Romney says, we stand by allies, we don't second guess them. Biden's dithering on Israel weapons is bad policy and a terrible message to Israel, our allies, and the world. So obviously that the you know, vehemently pro Israel crowd immediately turns on him, and as Ryan pointed out on Twitter, like the left progressives are never going to forgive him at this point, Like there are so many dead and so much destruction, it really doesn't matter what he does. You can't you can't undo the death and the damage and the trauma that has already been caused. So politically, you know, he's made his own bed. And the other thing that I point out too is, you know, day before he was basically painting Israel criticism as anti Semitic. So if that's your framework, and then the very next day you are yourself sizing Israel and you know, voicing some of the concerns that this protest movement is all about. Yeah, again, you've made your own bed. You've set the political framework that being critical of Israel in any way is effectively equivalent to being a Nazi. And then you you know, guess what happens when you then have to go and criticize Israel. The pro Israel crowd paints you exactly the way that they do these you know, student protesters who are on college campuses.
Yeah, let me reiterate what Mitt Romney said. We stand by allies, we don't second guess them. Biden's dithering is bad policy and a terrible message is crazy. Get yeah, exactly how many Israeli troops served in Afghanistan?
Anyone want to know? Zero?
How many Israelly troops served in Iraq? Even though they're the ones who asked us to go in there. Zero how many is how much Israeli dollars supported the US Global War on Terror in both of those zero I can go on forever. I mean, where there israelly troops on the ground in Vietnam. No, it's like, what ally are we talking about here?
Yeah, this is so crazy.
This is the John Fatterman line, is like, it doesn't matter what they do, We're gonna support them no matter what.
And it's like, that is insane. Even if you're just.
Looking at narrow American interests, it's insane. Obviously if you're looking at morality, you're literally saying like, no, I don't think they're doing a gemside, but even if they were, I would still support them. Like what, how can It doesn't matter what they do, You're gonna send them whatever they want, no matter what. That is crazy, It makes no sense. And yet this is I mean, really, Israel is very unique. You might put Ukraine in the same category. I think Israel's very unique in people's willingness to just say nope, don't care, don't care how many civilians are just lotter, don't care that it's against her and just don't care that we've turned all of the Middle East against us, don't care that our troops are being fired on because of Israel's policy, our support of Israel's policy, don't care.
It's Israel no matter what.
Like you didn't you didn't swear an oath to Israel when you were born in as a United States senator. And but that's the way they act, like we're going to put their interest over American interests, setting it explicitly. I just it blows my mind, honestly blows my mind.
I would be remissed if I didn't shout out of Jonah Goldberg. This is a gentleman, one of those never trumpers out there. He actually I have a personal beef because he implied I was anti Semitic whenever I said that the US military should only be used to defend America.
That never happens.
They never throw that flame around for what were I have heard from a lot of reliably anti Trump people, I mean really really anti Trump people have had it with Biden tonight. Anecdotal but very telling in my circle. So this is I mean, it was just digging about it. It's like Afghanistan, you know, which they also had dual loyalty to It's like one of those Oh that was fine, you know all these other things they supposedly stand for conservatives. I was, oh, that's just not a tumbbout Israel. That's the one where we got to turn. Let's go and put the next one up on the screen. It has some of the details that Crystal was talking about. Militarily, Actually there's some nificance here, but because we're specifically talking about the two thousand and the five hundred pound bombs, so it was eighteen hundred two thousand pound bombs and seventeen hundred five hundred pound bombs quote long seen as experts most likely to be targeted for any potential restrictions because not only how destructive they are in urban settings, but because of Israel's inability to actually manufacture or buy them for themselves. That's another thing that is not talked about enough here. Israel is a wealthy nation. Anybody who's ever been there, it's like being in California. I mean literally, they have universal health care, they have a crazy social welfare state. They have the ability to support a massive chunk of their population which does not work and is paid by the state to have children and pray all day, and you know, that's their society.
They could do what they want.
But I personally think that in the wealthy startup nation that they love to brag about, for anybody who's ever been there, you know what I'm saying, Well, they can pay for their own shit. Is that really such a controversial position. But as you said, Crystal, in the United States of America, that is a very controversial position to take.
There was also a discourse really a while back. It's kind of a dead discourse now at this point because it's so like patently obviously false. But of this whole like, you know, well, Israel's their own country, and we really don't have any say over what they do, you know, like we don't really have any leverage. All these people who claim that we could just you know, on a dime, we could do something and they change their behavior.
This is crazy. Clearly we do have leverage. Clearly it does matter.
There's already reports and is there's really press about how dire it would get for them very quickly if we actually cut off all of these weapons shipments.
They would be in a real bind.
They have to make some real decisions about what they can and can't do, because remember they're not just in the Gaza strip. They're also taking actions in the West Bank. They're also you know, fighting on the Northern Front versus Hezbola. You know, they had the back and forth with Iran very recently that was started, let's never forget by their provocation of bombing an Iranian embassy building in Damascus. It really is important for people to understand all of this is allowed and enabled by us. It can't happen with on us, It really can't, it really can't, not just from the weapons, from the diplomatic cover. How integral were we shot down most of the Iranian drones and missiles that were headed to is Or. We shot down a majority of them. And that's why you know, this kind even though there aren't US troops involved, although US troops are coming under fire because of our support for Israeli actions, but even though it's not directly our boots on the ground in Gaza, we are so integral to this we allow this to happen. And so yeah, there's a you know, there's a full freak out about what it could mean. Even just the pause of these shipments, some of that freak out was was evidenced even after before or Biden made these latest comments, after it came became public that a weapon shipment had been paused. We have an Israeli member the Kanessa and Lakud official, Tollie Gottlieb, who had this to say. We can put this up on the screen and I'll read it. She says, the US is threatening not to give us precise missiles. Oh yeah, well I got news for the US. We have imprecise missiles and we have the right to defend ourselves. So maybe instead of using a precise missile and taking down a specific room or a specific building, I'll use my imprecise missiles and I'll just collapse ten buildings, ten buildings, That's what I'll do.
She So.
Just think about this, like, because you are withholding two thousand pounds bombs, precise weapons because out of accountability for our war crimes and the fact they've been used to bomb civilians, guess what our response is to bomb even more civilians.
And you know, once again.
A lot of discourse about what college students have to say about this conflict. This is a member of the Kanesse, a senior party official of Baby at Nyahu's party. This is a powerful individual, and she talks in a just brazenly atrocious manner and yes, genocidal manner about how she'll take down ten buildings.
She doesn't care.
And the gall of these people after all that Joe Biden has stood by you while you did, and the minute there's even a little bit of a critique, they flip.
On a dime and they're completely indignant.
Ryan Grim, our own Ryan Grim at the State Department briefing yesterday, asked Matthew Miller about these comments and pretty surprisingly actually got a response.
Let's take a listen to that.
Leave Lacuda official. Remember the Kanessa. She said this, She said, the US is threatening not to give us precise missiles. Oh yeah, well, I've got news for the US. We have imprecise missiles. We'll use it. We'll just collapse ten buildings, ten buildings.
That's what we'll do.
So she's threatening that if Israel is held accountable for war crimes, they will respond by committing greater war crimes. What kind of effect does that have?
I'd say those decision making.
Those comments are absolutely deplorable, and senior members of the Israeli government should refrain from making them. We will continue to make our policy assessments based on what's in the best interests of the American people, what is in the best interests.
Of the region.
Absolutely deplorable. I'm surprised you got a response, because usually all just be like, oh, I didn't see it, or we'll look into it, or you know, they shouldn't say bad things, but we support them, et cetera, et cetera.
But he got a direct response.
Yes, he certainly did.
There's also this, This is my personal favorite, Crystal, I'll put this up please on the screen, is that the Israeli government is now warning that they they're warning the US that if you pause weapons, that will jeopardize hostage negotiations. So they're basically saying, if you take weapons away from us, then we will pull out of hostage negotiations, and we need those weapons to continue the war so we can free the hostages.
Do you understand what I'm saying.
Yes, it's a very interesting circular logic that we all have here in terms of the end result.
I genuinely don't know.
I saw It's von ben Gevier a tweet out this morning coromote quote Hamas Heart Biden, which.
Is not pretty instinct.
That's correct for a I mean a member of the Israeli government. I would not tolerate that from any foreign government who is a recipient of foreign aid if I were Biden. Apparently he's been tolerating things like that now for quite some time.
But yeah, it gets me to the point of just like, who do you think you are?
Man?
Who again, who do you think you are?
Yeah, you have armed weapons manufacturers in your country? No, you know you need us, So how about you shut your mouth and actually show us a little bit of respect. But that's their arrogance, that's who they are.
Well, and we know where that arrogance comes from, because they've gotten away with everything up to this point. I mean every like everything that the Biden has expressed was a problem for him that he's asked to do and had these tough conversations and very tough conversations about they just did it anyway. I mean the strike on the Ranian diplomatic building that was apparently that wasn't cleared with the U.
They just did it.
And then you know, our have to drag our asses into this thing and shoot down the missiles, make sure that we're protecting Israel, etcetera, etcetera.
So Biden has created.
This climate of you know, just total brazen arrogance and indifference to what the you know, American president might think about things. He created that climate, and in terms of the discourse, he fueled that discourse as well. You know, how many times have we heard that, Oh, anyone who anyone who's out protesting against this war, against Israeli actions in the Gaza strip, they love Hamas, They're terrors, they are Hamas, they say, I am Hamas, et cetera. So when you co sign that branding of the entire movement as being pro Hamas, then don't be surprised when that rhetoric's used against you.
Yep. I couldn't agree with you more.
And the end results of this will all be very interesting. Will Biden stay the course, We'll see. He has been very stubborn sometimes in the past. He is also very willing to cave. Personally, I think he's going to cave. This is the strongest lobby in the history of Washington, in terms of his own the people who are around him, in terms of what the I mean think too about what the Israelies can mobilize for our own domestic politics. Like you may think, these campus protests and all that can make your life miserable. What's even more miserable is when all your donors and all these other people who are so into the cost start pulling money away and start exerting their influence.
I could start and.
Plus the media whipping this up, you know, into a frenzy. I wouldn't bet so bet. I would not bet a lot that he stays the course on this.
Oh yeah, so tbd.
What if anything these comments actually meant. Meanwhile, there's been an insane legislative response to, in particular the campus protests. The latest entry into this book as Marshall Blackburn, who previously said that student protesters should be put on a terrorism no fly list, she is now actually working to codify that, drafting legislation along with Centator Roger Marshall that would do exactly that. She talked about her plans on her Instagram. Let's take a listen.
Here's what I believe.
If they are foreign students and they're here on a visa, we will pull the visa and deport them. They will never come back in this country. If they're American students in their own student loans that are text Bay or funded by the way, let's pull those student loans. Anyone who stands in shouts I am humus. Then what they should do is to be placed on the terrorist watch list. If they're going to tell us they are a terrorist, we should believe them.
And obviously the no fly list there actually pretty well. Because the thing is is that in that video Crystal she advocates just for foreign students, but actually, if you take a look at the legislation, we can put this up there on the screen, it would actually designate student protesters as terrorists and add them to the no filists. So this actually includes US citizens, a genuine breach in.
My opinion of constitutional rights.
Unfortunately.
Yeah, but unfortunately, during the War on Terror, as we all discovered, being on the no filist actually doesn't technically violate your constitutional rights according to the Bush administration, the Department of Justice, and some Supreme Court litigation that unfortunately did not go the way that it should have. So this again actually demonstrates the danger of the post nine to eleven security state as it is then applied to US citizens and specifically actually in this case, because we are talking about people who are protesting in that case. I mean, I'm not going to defend the no filists of that time, but the justification was is that they're actively members of a.
Foreign terrorist organization, right.
In this case, like aiding and abetting the enemy, right, Like genuinely treasonous behavior. Again, it was the way it was applied diculous, and hence I don't support it. In this case though, we're talking about people who are protesting the actions of a foreign government then being labeled as terrorists and being included on the no filist Another thing I would point out to many of our right wing listeners is don't forget how there were no flylist was trotted out after the January sixth prosecutions and members of the you know Trump you know or whatever pro Trump MAGA people were also placed on the no fly list as well, debanked, and basically had the power of both the state and the non institutional parties or institutional non governmental organizations thrown at you.
We're watching the exact same thing that's happened in play out right here.
I mean, it is so clear that whyatt was so important to oppose things like this at the time during the War on Terror, because you could see the way even though the public was all behind it and it felt good at yeah, we're going to make sure these terrorists can't fly and we got to keep ourselves safe. Like it was very it was very understandable that the public had that sentiment, but you had to look at the details and say, well, how else could this be used? How is it being there's literally no judicial oversight of this. It's kept secret. Who's being even put on this list. Those were all massive problems and red flags at the time. And now the way that we see it's being used against American citizens who it would apply to, Like you know, these kids who are camping out on their campuses, they get charged with trust passing boom, you're a terrorist and you're on a no fly list. Like that's crazy. It's absolutely crazy if you look at if you look at that, Texas. That's not the only legislative initiative either. We didn't pull an element for this one. But I was just telling Soccer this morning. There's another bill that was introduced by Andy Ogles of Tennessee and Jeff Duncan of South Carolina and Randy Weber of Texas that would send college protesters to Gaza for six months if they, I believe a similar thing, if they, like you know, were charged with trespassing or some sort of like broken window or whatever, then they would be sent to Gaza for six months. And the thing that Andy Ogle said about this is like they wouldn't last a minute there, and it's like, yeah, that's their point, is that Gaza is under a massive assault and.
People are being starved. Like if you.
Support that, maybe you're the one that should be sent to Gaza. If you think there's rarely military is so humane and everything's all well and good and Gaza, perhaps you're the one who should go and tell us how great it is, tell us how much aid is going in, let us know how it's going there. So, I mean, just the climate is I've never seen anything. I even going back to the height of the War on Terror, I genuinely have not seen anything quite like what we're experiencing.
I think the War on Terror was worse, you know, freedom fries and all that. Let's not erase some of the other insanity that happened at that time. The other thing we can point out to let's put this up there on the screen. And I guess what makes it crazier is that we're we are displaying significant similar levels of his area on behalf of a country and of a conflict of which we are not even technically the primary actor in.
And I think that is what is so calling.
Here we have from Jewish Insider House bills will ask the US Holocaust Museum to develop curriculum on the October seventh attack, creating resources for secondary schools and elementary schools to teach about October seven and subsequent anti Semitic and anti Israel sentiment. Now, the reason you should all be very afraid of this is because, unlike the Andy Oogles bill, this thing actually has a chance of going somewhere, and going somewhere, I think, well, don't forget the International Holocaust Remembrance definition of anti Semitism is the exact definition of anti Semitism, which was then passed through the US Congress. So this demonstrates very clearly that we would be using definitions outsourcing them to foreign organizations or non governmental organs. They should have a direct interest in protecting the State of Israel and pushing an agenda and then importing and putting that into US classrooms.
Now, if we're talking about science, okay, that's.
One thing, right, Well, we're talking about learning about a foreign government. First of all, why should like little kids even be learning about October seventh at all?
Like, for what purpose?
You know, whenever you're like sub eight years old, to the extent they should learn about October seventh. Yeah, think they should learn about autrocities, I guess all over the world, and maybe about what happened subsequently in US support and all of that. But we we don't even spend enough time on our own history of like Vietnam or World War One. I think we can spend a little bit less time on the histories of other places.
I mean, listen, you probably hear this and you're like, okay, what's wrong with learning?
No, you should have a problem with that.
If it was going to be all right, we're going to we're going to take a look at this comp We're going to dig into the origins. We're going to tell you what happened so you can understand why this, you know, continues to persist in the nature of the occupation. No, no, no, this is not what you're going to get from this Josh Gottheimer bill. The bill requests the new curriculum include information about October seventh attack, how the history of anti Semitism contributed to the attack, not about the land dispute in the occupation and the blockade, but the history of anti Semitism, as President Biden said, the ancient hatreds and desires. Right, that's the only thing that led to October seventh. Okay, even though there were many non Jews who were killed on that day. By the way, it's also going to talk about the quote unquote spread of anti Semitism and anti Israel rhetoric on campuses, conflating of course, anti Semitism and anti Israel rhetoric and the spread of anti Israel rhetoric on social media. So we've got to also learn how TikTok was. You know, the real villain of October seventh was actually TikTok. So it's not like you're getting an actually factual understanding for our children of what led to October seventh, what happened on October seventh, what happened after October seventh. No, you're getting a it's like the Israeli government wrote the propaganda piece for our own kids, which in effect they basically are. Because I guarantee, if you look at these two individuals who are sponsoring this bill's contribution history, I would bet very strongly that they've received some I know, for a fat Gotttheimer. I don't really know the other dude that much, but that they've received some campaign finance that may have, you know, helped to fortify them in their pro Israel no matter what sentiment.
Just a guess here, that's right.
We are extraordinarily fortunate to be joined this morning by Francesca Albaniz. She is an international lawyer and also the UN's Special Rapperteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories.
Welcome, it's great to have you.
Thank you do so.
To start with, I wanted to get your reaction to some breaking news from yesterday President Biden saying that he would halt some weaponshipments to Israel if they launched what he described as a major invasion into Rafa. Given what you know about the humanitarian situation on the ground in Gaza and in Rafa specifically, I wonder if you could speak to the significance of his comments.
I welcome this decision.
I wish it had come earlier because the situation in the Gaza strip is catastrophic, and of course all the more in Rapha, where one point five million people are amasked, including six hundred thousand children. The fact that there is no new shipment of weapons central Israel again is positive, although I understand that Israel's reaction has been that they will use.
What I have.
So one of the things that we wanted to get from you is just a broader discussion of some of the case that you had brought forward or had argued before before the ICC. So I'm wondering if you could give our audience, a US based audience, a view into some of the case that facts in the matter that you were able to discuss. Why you think it is important now in this context, even with the war continuing.
Well, the ICC has jurisdiction over crimes of war, crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity, as well as the crime and aggression.
I do not have the detail.
Of how the ic C and the Officer of the Prosecutor are qualifying the crimes they might have found in the context of their investigation in the situation of Palestine.
But I, as you might know from my.
Latest report presented to the Human Rights Counsel of the United Nations. I think that the grounds to believe that Israel has committed genocide in Gada are there, so I'm anxious to tique the ICC proceeding with hopefully arrest warrants, of course, both against Israeli leaders and Hamas leaders for what has happened.
On seventh over so Frantasica.
In the context of your report, which found reasonable grounds to believe that Israel is committing genocide in the Gaza Strip, what Israel's defenders will say is they are working hard to avoid civilian.
Casualties in Rafa.
They leafleitted asking people to evacuate. They say, listen, what other country uses these sort of techniques to get civilians out of harm's way. That it is Hamas's fault that there has been such a high civilian death toll because they operate out of population centers and places allegedly like hospitals. What is your response to that critique of your analysis, Well.
This is not what has happened on the ground in Gaza for the past seven months, and again we are talking of Uger half a year. All the casualties and the destruction seventy percent of Gaza has been destroyed. In terms of civilian infrastructure, including a livelihood, the essential livelihood. There is a total located that has been ongoing which prevents unfactored aid including water, of.
Food, meditation, and fuel entering Gaza.
This has been hampered over and over, and I reject the argument that they have tried to avoid civilian casualties because seventy percent of the victims of the reported victims of this conflict have steadily been women and children, and so this has been the situation that should have been addressed from the first weeks of the conflict. That there is another element to beta collected by many victims and survivors that have investigated over the past months, they said that since the very beginning they realized that Israel.
Was after something else with this war because.
They have seen Israel hitting indiscriminately symbols of Palestinian civilian life like universities, churches, again, essential livelihoods and hospitals. I also argue in the report that Israel has not rejected the allegations of the conduct that test taken place. They have differently qualified it, just defined it as in compliance with international Human Italian law, which I called you, which I call human Italian camouflash. Israel has justified by using international human Italian law jargon its military operations, for example, saying, yeah, but we ordered evacuations. The first evacuation was an evaluation order that the target at one point one million people, and it was said in an area that, by the way, comprised the twenty two hospitals, and they said, never remains behind will be considered a terrorist accomplice. And this is not the way to protect civilians. All the more Over, forty two percent of the casualties during the first weeks and months of the conflict where in area that had been identified as safe.
This is very is very dangerous.
It's an indication of how little precutions were taken. So the principle of distinctions between civilians and military and the principle of precutions were completed.
One question I had for you was given that the US and Israel, the two primary I guess the participants on this side of the war, are not party to the ICC. Why do you believe that it was important to bring this case forward for your own participation if there isn't going to be any immediate enforcement on behalf of those two governments.
Well, there is.
A jurisdiction of the ICC over war happened in the Occupied Palestine and territory.
This is under the jurisdiction of the board.
And these suppolls squarely in also the interest of Israel, because Israel is the occupying power in the in Jaza Strip, the West Bank and the Jerusalem.
So despite the fact that Israel's.
Not a member, is not a party to the Roman Statude, it's directly affected by it.
Francesca, I wonder if you could talk a little bit about the current humanitarian situation on the ground. There have been reports israel Is claiming that they've increased the amount of aid that is going into the Gaza Strip. On the other hand, you have Cindy McCain, the head of the UN World Food program saying that northern Gaza is in full blown famine and that is rapidly creeping south. What can you say about the current situation whether there has in fact been an increase in the amount of aid getting into Gaza, that.
Any increase is in the margins. Again, that the situation in the Gaza Strip is beyond despair. This is the reality and I keep them saying it Israel disputes the figures that are provided by the United Nations. Well, why doesn't Israel allow independent.
Monitors to enter the Gazza strips?
Why Israel doesn't allow journalists to enter because of strips?
This is the only conflict, if you want to pull it like.
That, that has no foreign correspondence, And it's astonishing.
The reality is dramatic.
What I hear not only from the United Nations to human dire operators on the ground, but also from many survivors. It's catastrophic and I've seen it with my own eyes. VI's in hospitals in the region where there are especially those who have been evacuated from Gaza in the last two weeks and months.
They are severely malnourished, especially the children.
So there is no question that famine has hit parts of Gaza heavily.
And the north, whatever is above.
The White Gaza has been almost off limits to the entry obeyed. Whatever that has entered from the south has been in heavily contingent and so very very limited. But also it's impossible to deliver aid. This is something that ANA has announced over and over. I mentioned Ana because this is the agency which has the largest capacity to deliver aid in the in the Gaza Strip, and that's been humpered by the bombing, the continuous bombing which has never stopped, the huge destruction to infrastructure, including roads, and the danger that is sense. So especially now with the control that in Israel maintains over the Rapha crossing.
The United Nations are already saying.
That there is absolutely not enough aid that enters the You know, there have been at tents to deliver food from from the sea and from air. But I find it even a bit cynical, if you allow me to say so, because it does not say that's not been delivered according to humanitarian standards, to the no armed principle, and so it has been off as are the d and even even dangerous, even lethal in a number of cases because the air drop US peoples Francesca.
As you know, the International Court of Justice is currently considering a courtesy of a case brought by South Africa, whether Israel is committing genocide violating those conventions in the Gaza Strip. They issued a preliminary finding that was widely reported and understood to be that they found it the case to be at least applausible. However, Joan Donahue, who just retired as president of the ICJ, recently spoke with the BBC and indicated this was not the correct way to think about this initial finding. Let's take a listen to what she had to say, and then I want to get your reaction and break down on the other side.
I'm glad I have a chance to address that because the court test for deciding whether to impose measures uses the idea of plausibility. But the test is the plausibility of the rights that are asserted by the applicant, in this case South Africa. So the court decided that the Palestinians had a place pausible right to be protected from genocide and that South Africa had the right to present that claim in the court. It then looked at the facts as well, but it did not decide and this is something where I'm correcting what's often said in the media. It didn't decide that the claim of genocide was plausible. It did emphasize in the order that there was a risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian right to be protected from genocide. But the shorthand that often appears, which is that there's a plausible case of genocide, isn't what the court decided.
Francesca, if you could help us understand what the Court did and did not decide in terms of this ICJ potential genocide case.
Yes, I think the first all we need to understand that if there was no case to be heard over alleged to genocide and Gaza, the case would have been stopped in its trucks, just as Israel requested.
Instead, the ICJ issued a preliminary of.
Preliminary measures on the twenty sixth of January and another on the twenty eighth of March, and does not bring either the South Africa versus Israel, not the Nicaraguabus Germany.
Cases that are still pending now.
The twenty sixth of January orders said there is a risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian right to be protected from genocide. There risk can only exist if someone exclusively threatening that right.
So it seems to me that there.
Is a confusion over semantics. So the possible right at risk is the right and not to be genocided.
So a bigger and more philosophical question. In your report, you wrote about the anatomy of a genocide. Could you define for us what genocide means I guess under international law and by the United Nations, and then give us some historical examples other than the Holocaust of what we should look to so that people can wrap their heads around.
I'm glad you asked me this question, Slagara, because especially in the Western world, I find that there is a huge confusion over what genocide means, and there is of court and it should be so. I mean, the Holocaust should remain great in our memory, especially I speak as a European, and the Holocaust should never be forgotten, and what led.
To the Holocausts should not be forgotten.
At the same time, what constitute genocides is not established by necessarily by by presidents or personal opinion or personal experiences, painful as they are. What constitutes GENOCIDEY is established by Article two of the nineteen forty eight Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and genocide is defined as a set of acts committed with intent to destroy.
National, racial, ethnic, or.
Religious group in a whole or in power art as such, and it includes a series of acts like killing members of the group, infliction of severe bodily or mental harm to members of the group, or the creation of conditions of life that would lead to the destruction of the group.
To mention the three cases that I found relevant.
In the case of side, of course, the treasury is very high because one is to prove not only the intent to commit to those crimes, but also the intent to come to destroy the people in all or in part, the protected group in all or in part through these acts, So the specific intent to commit genocide.
The other example of history, we say history is replenished of store.
Incidents and the cases of genocide. The very history of colonialism is replenished of genocide or ideology and practices. And this is something that we understand very well if we read the important literature that hasn't been left, including by Raphi Lenkin, the scholar who coined who gave the world genocide Francisca.
Why would a finding of genocide matter from the ICJ, Because, as has been reported and has always discussed when this case is discussed, the ICJ doesn't really have enforcement powers, So what does it even matter what they do? What does it even matter if this term actually comes to be applied to Israel's actions with regard to the Pacadian people, specifically in the Gaza strip. What's your response to that on the potential impact of this case.
Crystal, Your question is very important because while the ICJ determination in conclusions is critical to establish state responsibility over the crime of genocide, the Genocide Convention refers to the need to end the obligation to prevent genocide. I would like to say that the ICJ conclusions and measures, including provisional measures, are binding. So while the direct enforcement relies upon states, it's very important that the compass is established to buy the ICJ. Similarly important is the finding the investigation and the conclusions of national courts and the ICIC who then have the responsibility to identify individual criminal liability.
But again, the obligation to.
Prevent genocide is triggered by the risk that genocide is being committed, and for me, that moment was reached on the twenty six of January, when the Court is concluded that there is a plausibility of risk for the rights protected under the Genocide Convention for the.
Palestinians in Gaza. Why is it important.
It's important because in these instruments are and these mechanisms are the one leading to justice. But for me, the very existence of a convention which has in itself the obligation which is ERGA governments, applies to all member states, including those who are not party to the Genocide Convention, to prevent genocide. Giving the gravity of this crime is necessary. I mean, we cannot wait for the for the determination of the Court to prevent genocide, otherwise the genocide mind be committed.
My question is, so the defense here in the United States by the Israelis is that mass civilian death is frankly just. I guess part and parcel as they would put it, of an urban military campaign. The Israeli defenders have been pointing to US and Iraqi military actions.
In the city of Mosul.
There have been previous comparisons to the number of civilian casualties who are incurred in the Second World War. How do you think about the difference between those two or three examples. What level of civilian casualty is accepted? How do you parse intent? Whenever you are writing your report and you're thinking, as you said, through the genocide conventions.
I think that is the arguments that have been offered and that you voted for me are a way to divert the attention from what is happening on the ground and the need to have scrutiny.
Over Israel's practices.
This is not a case like any other, because Israel is the occupying power in the Gaza Strip and so should take the utmost precautions in ensuring that the occupied population is protected and is spared from the previous impact of any conflict. Now, and this is not the first conflict that has occurred in Gaza. This is the sixth, of course, the most the most valid. Again, I go back to the point that I said in the beginning the action that Israelist can have been indiscriminated and have targeted civilians, there is.
No question about that.
But this is something that I reflect from the very first days of the revengeful military operation against the Gaza Strip, because the very idea of targeting Hamas, going after Hamas considering anyone as a terrorist was very dangerous, was very blurred. Where is the distinction between the civilians and the combatants. We know that who can be targeted under international uanitary law are active combatants.
So even a soldier, including Israeli soldiers.
Cannot be targeted unless they are inactive combat and if they have surrendered, they need to be respected. They can be taken prisoners, but they cannot be executed.
So there is a.
Respect for the right to life in international humanitary laws in situational conflict, which is minimum, it's not absolute. And at the same time, this is the minimum threshold not to fall into complete brutality, cruelty and lack of humanity. So what has happened in Gaza is again Israel has justified inductions like okay, we have killed these many people because there were human shields. Where where is the evidence we know from the investigations that israelis in themselves. Israeli jornan Is carried out that artificial intelligence has been deployed up to the point that in order to target one hamas fighter or combatant and a risk up to one hundred people has been calculated. So there are being instances and documented distances like in Jovali, a camp where one of one hundred people were killed and one hundred people were injured just because there was one military.
Combatant allegedly there. We don't know if in active combat or not was was present.
Again, in the these are not precautions and it is not respectable princible distinction. So even if even if there was a legitimate reason to start the war against the Kaza strip, the weight it has been sorry, the way it has been conducted is absolutely against any basic principle of international law.
We also have a lot of statements from senior Israeli officials, some of which you document in your report, some of which are documented in the South African case at the ICJ, that seem to indicate genocidal intent, talking about no one involves civilians, describing all everyone in Gaza as animals reference to Biblical anlek et cetera. How important are those statements from Israeli officials. Now what they would say is, oh, this is just heat of the moment, this is populous rhetoric. It's not actually being translated into policy. So how significant and consequential do you find those statements to be?
No?
Indeed, if we look at the international Jewish prudence, for example, stemming from the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia or Ruanda, we can definitely see that statements of victuals per see do not constitute to the hardcore evidence to prove that there is general side. In fact, what I claim is that on the one hand, there has been a look at the legal legal documents that have animated this or have led to this military campaign, but also what has happened on the ground, because those words that you have, those horrible words that you have mentioned in the beginning, have resonated, have reverberated, have been internalized and acted upon by soldiers on the ground.
I mean, it's been really, really.
Soul consuming heartbreaking to see the self incriminatory videos that Israeli soldiers themselves have posted on social media and see significant number of whom I verified, including the technical experts, where they claim to have his entire neighborhoods as a revenge against the ded animals who carried out the seventh of October attack, and they have often and quoted this language the camelekt. They have talked of the full destruction of Gaza, and soldiers have repeated we came here to destroy, to occupy, and to.
And to settle.
And this is something that again as they could, so powerful across the infantry that has been deployed on the ground that it is really scary m hm.
One of the reasons that I.
Think, let me say, let me just I think it's important to implement what I said in the beginning. So in order to determine whether there is genocide, we need to find the intent.
And intent cannot be determined only.
On the words and the ordal statements of policy makers, but can be can be inferred. And again, when there is such a nature, scale and patterns of conducts that speak to the same intent, and there is a reality and the capacity to carry out genocide, well this is where the intent to become puspicious and facious.
One of the reasons that we reached out to you originally was a response from the US State Department where they appeared to imply that you were anti Semitic. So we have some of the comments here from the State Department spoke for sin Matt Miller, and we'll get your reaction.
Let's take a listen.
We have long, for long standing, for a long standing period of time, opposed the mandate of this special Rapporteur, which we believe is not productive. And when it comes to the individual who holds that position, I can't help but note history of anti Submitic comments that she has made that have.
Been and made anti Semitic comments she has.
And comments she made in December that appeared to adju justify the attacks of October seventh, So I think it's important to take that into account. But with respect to the report itself, we have made clear that we believe that allegations of genocide are unfounded.
So we wanted to give you a chance to respond to that.
Okay, First of all, the US has never considered this as always contested, like Israel, the value of this mandate, and this is something that precedes me and as little to do with my persona, while the comments of the spoken person had to do very much with my persona. And I was appolled when I heard that a senior US suficial could spread these lies, because there are lies.
First of all, I've never ever justified. It's appalling.
I've never justified the seventh of October attacks.
I've said that.
These acts were brutal, were criminal, and I have said that there should be an a There is an absolute need to have investigation and prosecution of those crimes. I've said also, we need to understand where this hatred comes from. What I have rejected is the qualification of those acts as motivated by antisemitism, because, first of all, there.
Is no evidence of it.
The second second thing is that there are is really scholars themselves who say that it's very responsible to put the burden of what has happened on alleged antisemitism of Palestinians because the responsal realizis Israel, and they put textualizes the horror that as the second place in occupied Palestinian terrory, territory for fifty six years, which might might have fed the hatred.
So again I pushed back on this allegation. The allegation of antisemitism is.
Repulsive, as disgusting for me is antisemitis. As a human rights lawyer, I'm engaged against antisemitism, against anti ISLAMO sorry, against Islamophobia, Arabophobia, any form of discriminations, including anti Palestinian racism. And what I really very much reject is that the allegation of antisemitism is used more and more to distract from Israel's responsibility, which is something that also not only betrays what antisemitism is, but creates new dangers for the Jewish people wherever they are. We need to distinguish what is Judaism and what is Israel's conducts. And I've always said, and I'm on record, I've always said any Jewish person is allowed to have all the feelings and love for Israel they want. What I stand against is the unconsctionable stance of governments in sheltering Israel accountability and which protracts its impunity.
Well, Frantasca, I guess you can take comfort in the fact that you're far from alone and being labeled as anti Semitic for her views with regard to what Israel's during the Gaza strip. I'm sure you're familiar with the discourse here, including from the President of the United States, about the campus protesters that have You know, these protests have really taken off across the country, students who are calling for a ceasefire, calling for the US and their support for what they see, as you do, as a genocide. I wanted to get your reaction to Speaker of the House Mike Johnson made some very noteworthy comments on Holocaust Remembrance Day about these protests and the character of these protests.
Let's take a listen to that the very campuses which were once the envy of the International Academy have succumbed to an anti Semitic virus. Students who were known for producing academic papers are now known for stabbing their Jewish peers in the eyes with Palestinian flags and with our survivors before us. If you close your eyes and the quietness of your own heart, you can almost hear the glass of Jewish storefronts shattered by stormtroopers. You could see fathers being executed at point blank in the ghettos. You can feel a brother's hand slipping out of his sisters as men in uniforms separate them into lines and they can only mouth to one another. Everything will be okay, hoping that would be.
So, Francesca. At first, just to correct the record, there.
Are no documented incidents of anyone being stabbed with the eye by a flag or any other thing. Just wanted to put that out there. But here you see the speaker of the house labeling American students, equating them to Nazis, very much echoing the rhetoric of Israeli President Benjamin Niaho. This has been used to justify quite an extensive crackdown and criminalization of these protests. I wonder what your reaction as an international human rights lawyer is both to this language but also to the response to these campus protests.
Well, let me.
React on the remarks.
First, I find Speaker Johnson's remarks both in felicitous and in natury the comparative evolutions of college campus protests against c CRU's conducting Gaza because the people we are talking about to antisemitism, to the heinous of revolting antisemitism that led to the Hall of Us is not only historically inappropriate, but also functions to divert the attention from the subsubti issues at hand, namely the growing body of evidence regarding the atrospity grinds committed in Gaza that clearly this young generation globally across the world cannot stomach anymore.
I also found that this is.
A rhetorical tactic exploiting the memory of the Holocos, instrumentalizing one of the history greatest atrocities for contemporary purposes is unacceptable because it undermines the gravity and uniqueness of the Holocaust while simultanently obscuring the pressing concerns in the occupied palacy and territory. And I believe that as we aim to foster a constructive and respective, respectful discourse, it is crucial that historical comparisons are made with careful considerations of their accuracy and their implications, and going to the protests in US campuses, I can tell as a European this is spreading across the world anyone including I mean, I live in an Arab country, and everyone is looking at these young people as the most courageous and I do share the team, so I keep.
On saying I hope that they stay peaceful and.
Respectful and ixtalate any element that my represent a threat to anyone in the university. But I also want to say that there are many Jewish students among them. And again, and this is what gives me hope that the new generation doesn't buy anymore what has been.
The narratives are sold by leadership and nowadays.
Francesca Albany, is you on special rappator. Thank you so much for taking some time with us this morning. We're extremely grateful and now you're very busy.
Thanks for your time. Thank you, Thank you guys so much for watching. We really appreciate it for supporting us. Make sure you go and sign up breakingpoints dot com. You can get early access to the Counterpoints debates and support some of the work there and help US interview you an officials. That's the first one for me, so thank you all very much. Otherwise, we'll see you all next week.
