ICC ‘simply not what it claims to be’: Douglas Murray
Summary
TLDRThe script discusses the International Criminal Court's (ICC) decision to investigate alleged war crimes by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yav Galant. Critics, including the speaker, label the panel biased, accusing them of lacking on-the-ground research and politically motivated judgments. The speaker also criticizes Australia's response as weak, contrasting it with the stronger stances of the US and UK. The narrative suggests an agenda-driven move by the ICC, with concerns raised about the court's jurisdiction and the potential for politically influenced outcomes.
Takeaways
- 📜 The panel backing the IC warrants against Israel includes international law and human rights expert Danny Friedman, British House of Lords member Helena Kennedy, and British Lebanese barister and human rights lawyer Amal Cooney.
- 📌 Amal Cooney posted a statement on the Clooney Foundation for Justice's website, concluding that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli Defense Minister Yav Galant have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity.
- 🤔 The speaker criticizes the panel, calling them 'preposterous political ideologues' and accusing them of lacking on-the-ground research and original work, suggesting they have not visited areas of conflict like Gaza.
- 🔍 The speaker argues that the panel's findings are politically motivated, suggesting that they are trying to draw a moral equivalence between Hamas and the IDF, and between Hamas leader Sinir and Israeli leaders.
- 🏛️ The speaker mentions that the international criminal court (ICC) has no jurisdiction in this matter and criticizes the decision to announce action against both Hamas leadership and Israeli leaders on the same day.
- 🇺🇸 The United States and the United Kingdom have condemned the ICC's decision, but the speaker implies that their motivations may not be purely principled and could involve political games.
- 🇦🇺 Australia's response is described as weak and unprincipled, with the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, and Foreign Minister Penny Wong not taking a strong stance against the ICC's decision.
- 🗣️ The speaker quotes Hamas leader Khaled Mashal, who calls for the annihilation of Zionists and praises the 'media flood' and 'legal flood' as part of the struggle.
- 🔗 The speaker draws a connection between the Australian government's stance and Khaled Mashal's views, suggesting that they are aligned with those who planned the 7th of October Massacre.
- 👎 The speaker concludes with a critical view of the Australian government's response, expressing hope that they are not proud of their position and predicting that history will judge them harshly.
Q & A
What is the panel's conclusion regarding Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli Defense Minister Yav Galant?
-The panel unanimously concludes that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Benjamin Netanyahu and Yav Galant have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, including starvation as a method of warfare, murder, persecution, and extermination.
Who are some of the experts on the panel backing the IC warrants against Israel?
-The panel includes international law and human rights expert Danny Friedman, British House of Lords member Helena Kennedy, and British Lebanese barister and human rights lawyer Amal Clooney.
What does Amal Clooney state on the Clooney Foundation for Justice website regarding the Israeli officials?
-Amal Clooney posted a statement on the Clooney Foundation for Justice website stating that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli Defense Minister Yav Galant have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity.
What is the speaker's opinion on the panel's findings and the experts involved?
-The speaker considers the findings preposterous and labels the experts as political ideologues pretending to be level-minded lawyers, specifically criticizing Helena Kennedy and Amal Clooney for their political motivations.
What criticism does the speaker level against the panel for their methodology?
-The speaker criticizes the panel for not conducting any on-the-ground research or original work, stating that they have not been to Gaza or any of the areas of fighting.
What does the speaker suggest is the political motivation behind the panel's actions?
-The speaker suggests that the panel is engaging in a political move, equating Hamas and the IDF, and that this is driven by a highly motivated, political agenda, possibly even with Islamist ideological influences.
What is the speaker's view on the International Criminal Court's (ICC) jurisdiction in this matter?
-The speaker believes that the ICC has no jurisdiction in this matter and should not have any, warning that if the ICC proceeds against Benjamin Netanyahu and the Minister of Defense Gallant, it could set a precedent for targeting leaders of other nations.
How does the speaker describe the decision to announce action against both the Hamas leadership and the Israeli Prime Minister and Defense Minister?
-The speaker describes the decision as a clear political move to put them on the same page, implying a false equivalence between the two parties.
What has been the response from Israel's strongest allies regarding the ICC's decision?
-The United States and the United Kingdom have come out strongly against the decision, condemning it, while Australia's response, led by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong, has been described as shamefully weak and unprincipled.
What is the speaker's opinion on the stance of Australia's Prime Minister and Foreign Minister?
-The speaker criticizes Australia's Prime Minister for not commenting on the court processes and labels the Foreign Minister's statement of support for the ICC as weak and unprincipled, suggesting political inconsistency.
How does the speaker connect the Australian officials' stance with Hamas leader Khaled Mashal?
-The speaker connects the Australian officials' stance by pointing out that they are aligning themselves with Khaled Mashal's goals, as Mashal has called for the annihilation of Zionists and supports various 'floods' including a legal flood like the ICC's actions.
Outlines
📜 Legal Expert Panel Accuses Israeli Leaders of War Crimes
A panel of experts, including international law and human rights expert Danny Friedman, British House of Lords member Helena Kennedy, and British-Lebanese barister Amal Clooney, has concluded that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli Defense Minister Yav Galant have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. The accusations include the use of starvation as a method of warfare, murder, persecution, and extermination. Amal Clooney, in a statement on the Clooney Foundation for Justice's website, emphasizes the importance of the rule of law and protecting civilian lives. The response to these accusations is highly critical, with the speaker dismissing the panel as politically motivated ideologues and questioning the validity of their findings due to a lack of on-the-ground research.
🔍 Critique of ICC's Decision and Political Responses
The speaker criticizes the International Criminal Court's (ICC) decision to issue arrest warrants against Israeli leaders, suggesting a political bias and a lack of jurisdiction. The speaker argues that the ICC's move is part of a broader political game, possibly influenced by the interests of other political figures. The critique extends to Australia's response, with the speaker calling out Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong for expressing support for the ICC, which the speaker views as weak and unprincipled compared to the responses from the UK and the US. The speaker also highlights a perceived inconsistency in the Australian government's stance, pointing out that they comment on other international court processes but not on this particular issue. The speaker further connects the Australian officials' position with that of Hamas leader Khaled Mashal, who has called for the annihilation of Zionists and supports various forms of 'floods' (media, legal, student, and Jihad) to achieve their goals.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡IC warrants
💡International law
💡Human rights
💡War crimes
💡Crimes against humanity
💡Rule of law
💡Political ideologues
💡Equivalence
💡Jihad
💡Annihilation
💡Massacre
Highlights
A panel of experts has concluded that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli Defense Minister Yav Galant have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The panel includes international law and human rights expert Danny Friedman, British House of Lords member Helena Kennedy, and British-Lebanese barister and human rights lawyer Amal Clooney.
Amal Clooney posted a statement on the Clooney Foundation for Justice's website, asserting the conclusion of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The panel believes in the rule of law and the need to protect civilian lives.
Douglas responds by criticizing the panel as political ideologues and not level-minded lawyers.
Helena Kennedy is described as a far-left political operative with a history of campaigning for left-wing causes.
Amal Clooney is accused of being politically motivated, potentially using the situation to raise funds for the Clooney Foundation.
The panel is criticized for not conducting on-the-ground research and not visiting areas of conflict.
Douglas suggests that the accusations against Netanyahu are baseless without firsthand knowledge of the situation.
The speaker implies that there is a political agenda behind the accusations, equating Hamas and the IDF.
The decision to announce action against both Hamas leadership and Israeli officials is seen as a transparent political move.
Douglas warns that if the ICC pursues Netanyahu and Galant, it could lead to similar actions against leaders of other nations.
The United States and the United Kingdom have condemned the ICC's decision, but Australia's response is criticized as weak.
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong are called out for their response to the ICC's decision.
Albanese's refusal to comment on court processes is contrasted with his comments on the Julian Assange case.
Penny Wong is accused of aligning herself with Hamas's leader Khaled Mashal through her support for the ICC.
Khaled Mashal's statements about the importance of annihilating Zionists and continuing Jihad are highlighted.
The speaker concludes by expressing hope that those who support the ICC's decision will not be proud of their stance in the future.
Transcripts
well we have a list of the experts who
back the IC warrants against Israel the
panel includes uh international law and
human rights expert Danny Friedman
British House of Lords member Helena
Kennedy and British Lebanese barister
and human rights lawyer Amal Cooney who
posted a statement on the website of the
uh Clooney foundation for justice she
wrote We unanimously conclude that there
are reasonable grounds to believe that
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu and Israeli defense minister
yav Galant have committed war crimes and
crimes against humanity including
starvation as a method of warfare murder
persecution and
extermination I served on this panel
because I believe in the rule of law and
the need to protect
civilian lives uh Douglas what's your
response to that
these are all more Preposterous
political ideologues pretending to be
cool level-m minded uh uh lawyers Helena
Kennedy is a far leftwing
career political operative in the UK she
spent her whole life campaigning for
Looney left causes and giving them some
legal uh patterer Amal Clooney another
highly motivated poit iCal operator in
her case doubtless she will use this to
raise more funds for the Clooney
foundation and to burnish her own
credentials in some other way but but if
you just consider what they've done
there first of all these Preposterous
so-called judges and lawyers have done
no on the ground research nothing
original they haven't been into Gaza
they haven't been in any of the areas of
the fighting so when they say we find
that Benjamin netan who could have
overseen murder in a war zone they don't
even know that it has happened I mean I
suspect there is some killing in a war
zone it strikes me as being kind of
durar and that's why Hamas shouldn't
have started a war but the other thing
these people have done is I said earlier
um Khan decided to go for the one uh
Jewish state in the world but he waited
and did it at the same time as going for
for or claiming that he's going to go
for sinir the Hamas leader who planned
and organized the 7th of October
massacres so what he's doing is this
neat political I would say even islamist
ideological thing which is if you can't
get through in the in the way you want
you pretend there is moral parity
between hamaz and the IDF between sinir
who planned the 7th of October
atrocities and Benjamin Netanyahu whose
task it is the unenviable task of
getting the hostages home and punishing
the leadership of Hamas they have just
drawn an equivalence between those two
things I think it's as I say highly
motivated highly political at best the
whole thing stinks of an agenda and I
would just say that everybody who's just
stumbled upon the international criminal
court should remember again it isn't
what it says it is it has no
jurisdiction in this matters and nor
should it if it is agreed that these
highly motivated individuals can come
for Benjamin Netanyahu and the Minister
of Defense Gallant they will be coming
for an Australian prime minister next or
a British Home Secretary or an American
Secretary of State and they have no more
right
there you're 100% right there and and
the decision to uh announce this uh
action against the Hamas leadership and
the Israeli Prime Minister and defense
minister on the same day it is such a
clear political move to put them on the
same page as if there is some
equivalence
there it's just
transparent yeah it is and it's going to
work
legally absolutely well this decision by
the I has been condemned by Israel's
strongest allies we've had uh the United
States come out strongly the United
Kingdom but sadly our prime minister
Anthony albanesi has been shamefully
weak on this issue and his foreign
minister Penny Wong I'd argue has been
even worse let's hear from the Prime
Minister first well I don't comment on
court processes in Australia let alone
Court processes globally that of which
Australia is not a
party apparent he can't uh make any
comment on court cases overseas just a
few minutes later he he made comment on
the Julian Assange case which is
happening overseas so he could even stay
consistent there but his foreign
minister Penny Wong used her Department
to issue a statement expressing support
for the ICC the statement said Australia
respects the ICC and the important role
it has in upholding international law
the decision on whether to issue arrest
warrants is a matter for the court
Douglas uh Australia's response seems
not just weak but unprincipled compared
to what we've seen from the UK and the
US well first of all don't be so sure
that the US and UK are so principled on
this I think there's a political game
going on here and the Biden
Administration would be perfectly happy
to to give over Netanyahu in order to
get a preferred candidate so there's a
lot of different types of politics going
on and in the UK the labor part party
who are likely to be the overwhelming
party of government in Britain later
this year their um their idiot uh
representative actually welcomed the
ruling so that would be British policy
too as for Albania and Wong I mean they
can console themselves and certainly
Wong can console herself that she is on
exactly the same side as hamad's leader
Khaled mashal uh let me just read you
quickly what Khaled mashal said earlier
this week in a speech he said that it's
extremely important to annihilate the
zionists for the good of humanity and
that being far away from a zone of jihad
does not mean that you are absolved from
carrying out Jihad he says that the
alaxa flood which is what he and his
friends in Hamas call the 7th of October
Massacre he said the alaxa flood must be
followed by and has been followed by
quote the great student flood all of
those students on Western campuses
they're doing what the head of hamz is
wanting them to do he said we need a
media flood well khed Mel's got the
media flood all the way from the New
York Times to Al jazer he says then we
need a legal flood such as the uh the
incidents and the attempts to use the ha
he's also said of course that we need
Jihad and resistance and a Jihad flood
so Wong and can console herself like all
of those wrong-headed students on
various campuses who've made common C
with hamz they're on exactly the same
page lock step with one of the people
who planned the 7th of October Massacre
I hope they're proud of themselves
history will be horrible to them
Ver más vídeos relacionados
International Criminal Court - ICC
How can the ICJ's orders against Israel on Gaza be enforced? | Inside Story
EXCLUSIVE: ICC prosecutor seeks arrest warrants against Sinwar and Netanyahu for war crimes
'Find A Moral Backbone': UK PM Rishi Sunak Grilled Over Israel’s Rafah Invasion Plan | Watch
Schäm Dich, Kaya Yanar!
Sunak Picks Brexit Fight With His Own Party
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)