Thursday’s edition of Amanpour & Co., which co-airs on CNN International and government-funded PBS, was obsessed about South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice, devoting over half an hour to the subject with two guests. Guest host Bianna Golodryga interviewed Brown University Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies Omer Bartov, and also the former Israeli Consul General in New York, Alon Pinkas.
Guest professor Bartov, who signed an open letter criticizing Jews for invoking the Holocaust over the October 7 atrocities committed against Jews by Hamas, praised South Africa’s biased, hostile anti-Israel case, saying “the presentation was very powerful. And it made a strong case, at least for the need for such a distinguished body as ICJ to deliberate this case….”
Pinkas was even less restrained:
There have been several things that Israel could have done to avert this genocide accusation….Surely, it's going to be difficult to show intent here. But what made this complicated, and you and Omer Bartov both referred to it, is those reckless, moronic, idiotic statements by Israeli politicians on all sides, making all these ridiculous ideas, flatten Gaza, burn Gaza, nuke Gaza, relocate the population of Gaza…..
Yet while Israeli politicians may say reckless things in the heat of justified anger, Israeli forces don't act on them.
Golodryga apparently found Israel’s plight amusing, barely restraining herself from giggles while speaking the bolded piece below, a reaction noted by Pinkas, who joined in the mockery of the country that suffered a terrorist attack three months ago and now stands accused of genocide as it fights back.
Golodryga: ….I want to have you respond to an Axios report that based on this court trial in the ICJ court case, that a cable was sent by the foreign ministry in Israel to its ambassadors around the world demanding that local leaders "publicly and clearly state that your country rejects the outrageous, absurd and baseless allegations made against Israel." As an expert in this field as a former diplomat, what is your response to that? Is that something that would have been expected by any country to do?
PINKAS: Well, you giggled yourself when you said that. No, no one's going to respond. Micronesia may respond favorably. The Canadians may weigh this into their policy. Otherwise, no one is going to take this seriously. And no one is going to take this seriously not only because of the scope and the scale of the operation in Gaza. They're not going to take it seriously because Mr. Netanyahu has a credibility deficit in the world….
Golodryga put the onus on Israel to get the hostages taken by Hamas released.
Golodryga: Do you, as many Israelis feel, do you think that this government, the Netanyahu government, is doing everything they can now as we are approaching Day 100 of these more than 100 Israeli hostages that are still remaining in Gaza. Are they doing enough to prioritize their release?
Pinkas put his hopes in Qatar, which notoriously harbors Hamas leadership and is a financier and ally of Hamas. An honest broker?
PInkas: ….Now, reportedly, there's a Qatari effort, and the Qataris have been extraordinarily helpful here. The Qataris have said that there's a plan that, in exchange for a full ceasefire, the hostages will be released. Israel is saying no full ceasefire at this point. So, I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but you asked whether it's doing everything and the answer is no.
Golodryga tsk-tsked Israel for not wanting to pause a war it’s winning as if it was responsible for the hostages being taken, not Hamas.
Golodryga: Yes, that is unfortunate to hear and just think about all these families that are waiting. Waiting desperately for the return of their loved ones….
A transcript is available, click “Expand.”
PBS Amanpour & Co.
1/11/24
1:05:39 p.m. (ET)
GOLODRYGA: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has come out strongly against the case today, saying the "hypocrisy" of South Africa screams to the high heavens. Joining me now for more on this is Omer Bartov. An Israeli American professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies at Brown University. Professor, welcome to the program. Thanks so much for joining us. So, we should note that proving genocide is a very high threshold to meet. But what South Africa, at least in its initial claims here and requests, is calling for the plausibility of genocide to be determined by this court. Can you explain the difference and the lower standards here for the plausibility to be ruled?
OMER BARTOV, PROFESSOR OF HOLOCAUST AND GENOCIDE STUDIES, BROWN UNIVERSITY: Yes, and thank you for having me. So, as you say, the Genocide Convention created a law that is difficult to prove because you need to prove both intention and then the implementation of that intention to destroy a particular national, ethnic, or racial group as such. But what is -- what South Africa is calling for initially is for actions for a particular action that would prevent Israel from going on with the kind of violence that is being perpetrated in Gaza now while the case itself is being deliberated, and that's on the basis of saying that one cannot wait in this state of emergency until a final decision is made, which could take a year or even longer than a year.
GOLODRYGA: What do you make of their evidence and what was proposed and outlined today that we heard from South Africa?
BARTOV: Well, I must say, first of all, that the filing, which is 84 pages long, is extremely detailed and includes a sort of long history of not only of what is happening in Gaza now, but the history of the Israeli occupation in Gaza and the West Bank and the presentation was very powerful. And it made a strong case, at least for the need for such a distinguished body as ICJ to deliberate this case, which is, of course, a really rare moment. There's only one other case a few years ago when such an accusation was made by one country against another of committing genocide that was deliberated by the IJC. So, this is extremely rare, and I think it's a very important moment, also, generally in international law.
GOLODRYGA: Can you talk about how previous case law will be factored in by these judges in their ruling for this case?
BARTOV: Well, they don't have a huge amount of --
GOLODRYGA: Right.
….
BARTOV: Well, we don't know. The assumption is, I suspect it's correct, but we really can't say, that the court will not call for a ceasefire, but rather will call on Israel, A, to be much more discriminant in its military actions, and B, to make sure that much more humanitarian help is being brought into Gaza, where there's now a major problem of not only the 23,000 or so who were killed, but also famine and of epidemics. I suspect this is what they may come up with. And then, of course the court has no way to enforce this and it may have to go to the Security Council. And the Security Council may be facing a veto by the United States.
GOLODRYGA: Surely will be facing a veto by the United States. It's already called this case meritless. What about the argument, that separate from this court case, that Israel is saying, listen, we've allowed for more aid trucks, from -- thanks to western pressure, especially from the United States, to go in, and that now, just days ago, they've announced a new phase, a less intense phase in this war. Do you expect to hear those arguments from the Israelis tomorrow? And will the court factor that in?
BARTOV: It's possible. I don't know whether they'll talk about the third phase that they are implementing but they will probably talk about increased humanitarian aid, but that humanitarian aid is completely insufficient and the third phase means that there will be operations precisely in that area where most of the population of Gaza is now concentrated. And so, any military action there is bound to, A, bring many more civilian losses, and B, just make the humanitarian situation even worse. We know that it's deteriorating now. We know that there is not enough aid coming in. There are about 200,000 civilians in Northern Gaza who seem to be getting no help at all, and there's very little reporting on that. And so, I don't think that this will wash, but maybe the court will take that into account.
GOLODRYGA: And we know the majority of the victims and those killed are children in this war, sadly as well. I'd be remiss not to just bring up the optics of this and the fact that the Genocide Convention was established in 1948 after the Holocaust and the murder of 6 million Jews. The establishment of the State of Israel followed the Holocaust as well. Israel has accused the U.N., as you know, a bias for many years. Has accused South Africa of bias for being more sympathetic to the Palestinians. I'm just wondering, from your perspective, where do those arguments sit in this case?
BARTOV: Well, you know, I'd say that there are two major ironies here. One is, as you say, that of course the Genocide Convention, which was pushed by Raphael Lemkin, who was himself a Jewish Polish lawyer who ended up in America, invented the term, was supported largely because of what happened in World War II, and particularly the mass murder of the Jews, the genocide of the Jews, and that Israel now would stand accused of that is a very sad moment. But it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be if there is enough evidence.
….
….
ALON PINKAS, FORMER ISRAELI CONSUL GENERAL IN NEW YORK AND FORMER ADVISER TO ISRAELI PRIME MINISTERS BARAK AND PERES: Well, I'm not an expert on that field, Bianna.But I did hear the --I did hear your interview of Omer Bartov in its entirety. It was an excellent interview, very illuminating, very – you know, very informative. You know, there's very little that I can add to that. There have been several things that Israel could have done to avert this genocide accusation. I mean, it's going to be very difficult to prove genocide because, as you know, and I think Professor Omer Bartov referred to it, you need to prove intent. And intent is very difficult. You can barely prove intent on the dropping of two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You can barely prove intent on allied bombings of Dresden or German bombings of Coventry. Surely, it's going to be difficult to show intent here. But what made this complicated, and you and Omer Bartov, both referred to it, is those reckless, moronic, idiotic statements by Israeli politicians on all sides, making all these, you know, ridiculous ideas, you know, flatten Gaza, burn Gaza, nuke Gaza, relocate the population of Gaza. So, this is taken very seriously. You saw the prime minister speak in English, you alluded to it earlier. He sent a nemesis of his Former Supreme Justice -- Supreme Court Justice and President of the Supreme Court, Aharon Barak. That was not an easy thing for him to do, because if there is an injunction or so-called a provisional ruling it could then move to the ICC, the International Criminal Court, where Mr. Netanyahu, among other people, may be indicted. So, it's a big deal that I think will dictate moves from now on.
GOLODRYGA: The International Criminal Court, I'm glad you brought this up, because for those that may be watching and saying, what about Hamas' role in all of this and being tried? That's where Hamas officials would, in theory, be tried. The International Criminal Court, that goes after individuals, as opposed to the International Court of Justice, which really focuses on nations.
Again, this is a hypothetical, but when you talk about some of these outlandish irresponsible, reckless statements that have been made by those in this government, you know, there are a few ways to defend it. Other than saying that they're not part of the war cabinet or, you know, this is a democracy, you can't control what people say. If Prime Minister Netanyahu wanted to, could he have? Could he have put his foot down? Could he have made that statement that he made in English yesterday in Hebrew?
PINKAS: Seven times in the last week, 30 times in the last month and 90 times in the last three months. He should have, and he could have, and he refrained from doing so for his own political expediency.
You know, I -- the only line of defense, Bianna, that I could see Israel using with these statements being part of the application or the indictment, is insanity. If, you know -- if Israel's advocates say that these ministers are borderline insane and cannot differentiate between good or bad, right and wrong, maybe that's a working line of defense. Otherwise, I think they'll focus not on the statements, but on the more substantive issue of intent. But again, like you said at the end, this could -- if the ICJ issues an injunction, again, a provisional ruling, this can go back to the Security Council. And yes, the U.S. will probably, most likely, 99 percent veto it, but it would further isolate the U.S. It would further pressure the Biden administration. Secretary Blinken's visit here was not successful. He had some very difficult and unpleasant exchanges with his hosts in this country in Israel, particularly with the prime minister, with Mr. Netanyahu. So, I see this all converging into a point where the U.S. is going to -- it is in the process of considering, but the U.S. will actually change policy.
GOLODRYGA: And none of this, as you noted, benefits President Biden going into an election year where his poll ratings have already been pretty low as it stands.
I wanted -- before I get onto the other issues in the region there, most notably Lebanon, I want to have you respond to an Axios report that based on this court trial in the ICJ court case that cable was sent by the foreign ministry in Israel to its ambassadors around the world demanding that local leaders "publicly and clearly state that your country rejects the outrageous, absurd and baseless allegations made against Israel." As an expert in this field as a former diplomat, what is your response to that? Is that something that would have been expected by any country to do?
PINKAS: Well, you giggled yourself when you said that. No, no one's going to respond. Micronesia may respond favorably. The Canadians may weigh this into their policy. Otherwise, no one is going to take this seriously. And no one is going to take this seriously not only because of the scope and the scale of the operation in Gaza. They're not going to take it seriously because Mr. Netanyahu has a credibility deficit in the world. And now, when push comes to shove, he's asking France or Norway or Japan to be understanding, to be sympathetic. I doubt that is going to work.
Even though, even though the case itself is frivolous and nasty. But asking -- you know, asking Italy or Argentina to stand up and say that they oppose it, I think is an exercise in futility.
….
PINKAS: And so, this is playing with a lot of fire. At a time -- I'm going back to our first topic or second topic, at a time when the so-called day after Gaza, not only has not been resolved, it hasn't even seriously been discussed yet. So, he has a vested interest in prolonging this. This distances him from the debacle of October 7th. That prevents widespread demonstrations in Israel demanding that he assume responsibility. And that
GOLODRYGA: And that he release --
PINKAS: -- distances him even more --
GOLODRYGA: And that he'd do more to release the hostages.
PINKAS: I'm sorry.
GOLODRYGA: And that he'd do more to release the hostages. Do you -- as many Israelis feel, do you think that this government, the Netanyahu government, is doing everything they can now as we are approaching day 100 of these more than 100 Israeli hostages that are still remaining in Gaza. Are they doing enough to prioritize their release?
PINKAS: The short answer is no. I mean, verbally, they remain committed. Practically, they're not necessarily taking seriously the ideas that are out there. Now, the ideas shifted. There was a time when there was an idea that all Palestinian prisoners will be released in exchange for all hostages. Israel said that that's a nonstarter.
Now, reportedly, there's a Qatari effort, and the Qataris have been extraordinarily helpful here. The Qataris have said that there's a plan that in exchange for a full ceasefire, the hostages will be released. Israel is saying no full ceasefire at this point. So, I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but you asked whether it's doing everything and the answer is no.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, that is unfortunate to hear and just think about all these families that are waiting. Waiting desperately for the return of their loved ones. Alon Pinkas, always great to see you. Thank you so much for joining us.
PINKAS: Thank you, Bianna. My pleasure.
