ICC ‘simply not what it claims to be’: Douglas Murray

Summary

The 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

00:00

📜 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.

05:01

🔍 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.

Keywords

💡IC warrants

IC warrants refer to arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC). In the context of the video, these are against Israel, suggesting that the ICC is taking action against Israeli officials for alleged crimes. The mention of 'IC warrants against Israel' implies a legal action initiated by an international body against a state and its officials.

💡International law

International law encompasses the rules and norms governing relations between states and international entities. It is a key concept in the video as it underpins the authority and actions of the ICC. The panel of experts, including Danny Friedman, is described as being comprised of individuals with expertise in international law, indicating their qualifications to assess and comment on the legality of actions by states and individuals.

💡Human rights

Human rights are the basic rights and freedoms to which all individuals are entitled. The video discusses the alleged violation of these rights by Israeli officials, with the panel concluding that there are 'reasonable grounds to believe' war crimes and crimes against humanity have been committed. This highlights the video's focus on the protection of civilians and the ethical conduct of states during conflict.

💡War crimes

War crimes are serious violations of the laws and customs of war that give rise to individual criminal responsibility. The panel's conclusion that Israeli officials have committed war crimes, including 'starvation as a method of warfare, murder, persecution, and extermination,' is central to the video's narrative. It emphasizes the severity of the allegations and the potential legal consequences.

💡Crimes against humanity

Crimes against humanity are certain acts that are deliberately committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack. The video script mentions these crimes in relation to the actions of Israeli officials, suggesting a pattern of severe human rights abuses that transcend individual acts of violence.

💡Rule of law

The rule of law is the principle that law should govern a nation, as opposed to being governed by individuals, ensuring fairness and justice. A panel member serves 'because I believe in the rule of law and the need to protect civilian lives,' which underscores the video's theme of holding powerful individuals accountable for their actions under the law.

💡Political ideologues

Political ideologues are individuals who hold strong political beliefs or ideologies that may influence their actions or interpretations. The speaker in the video criticizes the panel members as 'preposterous political ideologues pretending to be cool level-minded lawyers,' suggesting a bias in their assessment and implying a political motivation behind the ICC's actions.

💡Equivalence

Equivalence in this context refers to the perceived equal footing or moral comparison between two parties. The speaker argues that there is an attempt to draw 'moral parity between Hamas and the IDF,' which he views as a politically motivated move rather than a fair assessment of the situation. This term is key to understanding the speaker's critique of the ICC's approach.

💡Jihad

Jihad is an Arabic term often translated as 'holy war,' but it can also mean striving or struggling in the way of God. The video mentions a 'Jihad flood' in the context of a speech by Hamas leader Khaled Mashal, indicating a call for a broad and sustained effort to fight against perceived enemies, which is used to highlight the extremist views of Hamas.

💡Annihilation

Annihilation refers to the complete destruction or extinguishing of something. In the video, Khaled Mashal is quoted as saying it is 'extremely important to annihilate the Zionists for the good of humanity,' which underscores the extreme and violent rhetoric associated with Hamas and its goals.

💡Massacre

A massacre is the killing of a number of people, typically in a brutal or violent manner. The video refers to the '7th of October massacres,' which were allegedly planned and organized by the Hamas leader. This term is used to emphasize the severity of the actions attributed to Hamas and to draw a contrast with the actions of Israeli officials.

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