The United Nations Office at Geneva
Multimedia Newsroom
OHCHR Press Conference - 11 December 2024
/
1:05:04
/
MP4
/
3.8 GB
Press Conferences , Edited News | OHCHR
OHCHR Press Conference: Human Rights in Gaza and OPT - 11 December 2024
Story: “Rights experts: end Israel impunity” – 11 December 2024
Speakers are:
- Francesca Albanese, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967
- Margaret Satterthwaite, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers
- Ben Saul, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism
- George Katrougalos, Special Rapporteur on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order
TRT: 3’26”
SOURCE: UNTV CH
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH / NATS
ASPECT RATIO: 16:9
DATELINE: 11 December 2024 - GENEVA, SWITZERLAND
Geneva Press Conference
SHOTLIST
- Exterior medium shot: UN flag alley.
- Wide shot of speakers at the podium in the press conference room.
- SOUNDBITE (English) Francesca Albanese, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967: “We ask one simple, very simple thing, all of us in unison: the compliance with international law. It's not charity, it's an obligation.”
- Wide shot of photographers in the press conference room.
- SOUNDBITE (English) Francesca Albanese, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967: “There are never sanctions on Israel. Judicial processes are either ignored or circumvented, and trade continuous and diplomatic ties remain intact. Member States seem to be paralyzed or struck, many of them still normalizing the occupation.”
- Wide shot of the press conference room.
7. SOUNDBITE (English) Ben Saul, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism: “One of the striking features of the last 14 months is how Israel has used counterterrorism rhetoric to justify exceptional extreme violence against Palestinians, accompanied by a chronic dehumanization of the Palestinian people, which, of course, allows them to be killed in large numbers at the political level and also through the legal measures that Israel has taken.”
- Wide shot of photographers and journalists in the press conference room.
- SOUNDBITE (English) Ben Saul, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism: “This last campaign in Gaza is unprecedented in the history of warfare and in recent years. It's not just that there have been extreme violations which have been well documented. So, we all, over the past 14 months, have seen deliberate attacks on civilians, indiscriminate attacks, disproportionate attacks, starvation, denial of humanitarian relief, suppression of NGOs and UNRWA as “terrorists”, a complete lack of credible accountability through the Israeli military and civilian justice system.”
- Close shot of photographer in the press conference room.
- SOUNDBITE (English) Ben Saul, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism: “Israel has enabled this violence by taking very extreme, exceptional interpretations of international humanitarian law to impose a kind of cloak of legality on what they're doing. So, they've expanded the definition of what is a military objective. They've expanded the category of people they call fighters who can be attacked. They impose very large numbers on the civilian casualty counts that they tolerate in targeting.”
- Medium shot of speakers at the podium.
- SOUNDBITE (English) Ben Saul, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism: “Much of this has gone unchallenged by the States that matter and that can have a real influence to change Israel's behavior on the ground.”
- Wide shot of speakers at the podium and press conference room.
- SOUNDBITE (English) Margaret Satterthwaite, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers: “It's time to end the double standards: international justice exists or does not. We can't abide by justice for people from some States and the protection of the law for some people with impunity, for people from other States, and an abandonment of the resulting victims.”
- Wide shot of the press conference room.
- SOUNDBITE (English) George Katrougalos, Special Rapporteur on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order: “We have, all of us, a moral responsibility. One of the ways that we have to (put) pressure upon governments to respect their legal obligations is by demonstrating our willingness to defend human rights and be against injustices.”
- Various shots of journalists in the press conference room.
Rights experts call for end to impunity for Israel’s violations of international law
Four independent human rights experts jointly called on Wednesday for the international community to sanction Israel’s conduct of hostilities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as well as in the wider Middle East region - including in Syria, Lebanon and Iran. They also called for the restoration of trust in the international justice system through the abandonment of “extreme interpretations” and “double standards” in the application of the universal norms which regulate the conduct of war.
The four Special Rapporteurs - independent experts advising the Human Rights Council in their personal capacities – were speaking at a press conference in Geneva today.
“We ask for one simple thing: compliance with international humanitarian law - it’s not charity, it’s an obligation,” said Francesca Albanese, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, speaking at a press conference at the United Nations in Geneva today. (Special Rapporteurs are independent human rights experts appointed by the Human Rights Council to fulfil advisory functions in their individual capacities.)
Citing the very high casualty figures among Palestinian civilians, as well as the blockages to humanitarian aid and the expansion of settlements, among a list of violations, Ms. Albanese questioned what she called the weak response from the UN Member States, even in the face of attacks on its own staff, premises, and representatives. “There are never sanctions on Israel - judicial processes are either ignored or circumvented, and trade continuous and diplomatic ties remain intact. Member States seem to be paralyzed or awestruck, many of them still normalizing the occupation,” Ms. Albanese said.
Ben Saul, the rights expert on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, said that “one of the striking features of the last 14 months is how Israel has used counterterrorism rhetoric to justify exceptional extreme violence against Palestinians, accompanied by a chronic dehumanization of the Palestinian people, which, of course, allows them to be killed, in large numbers — at the political level and also through the legal measures that Israel has taken.”
Mr. Saul pointed out that insufficient attention has been focused on what he described as “extreme” and non-standard legal interpretations of international humanitarian law and human rights law being applied by Israel to justify unprecedented levels of violence. “This last campaign, in Gaza, is unprecedented in the history of warfare in recent years,” Mr. Saul said, adding that includes “deliberate attacks on civilians, indiscriminate attacks, disproportionate attacks, starvation, denial of humanitarian relief, suppression of NGOs and UNRWA as “terrorists”, a complete lack of credible accountability through the Israeli military and civilian justice system.”
He explained that “Israel has enabled this violence by taking very extreme, exceptional interpretations of international humanitarian law to impose a kind of cloak of legality on what they're doing. So, they've expanded the definition of what is a military objective. They've expanded the category of people they call fighters who can be attacked. They’ve imposed very large numbers, on the civilian casualty counts, that they tolerate in targeting.”
Mr. Saul echoed the call for credible investigations, and an end to impunity, noting that most violations have “gone unchallenged by the States that matter and that can have a real influence to change Israel's behavior on the ground.” Mr. Saul pointed specifically to Germany and the United States, as suppliers of the great majority of Israel’s military hardware, as being countries that could use their influence to end many of these human rights violations.
Margaret Satterthwaite, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, stressed the role of international justice, particularly the International Criminal Court (ICC), in holding perpetrators accountable for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. She criticized the United States government for undermining the ICC with “outrageous” threats and stressed the need for international justice to be equitably applied to all.
“It’s time to end the double standards,” Ms. Satterthwaite said. “International justice exists or does not. We can't abide by justice for people from some States and the protection of the law for some people with impunity, for people from other States, and an abandonment of the resulting victims.”
George Katrougalos, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, a former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Greece, echoed the concern for the broader consequences of impunity for the international order, warning that Israel’s actions risk creating a two-tiered system where some States are immune to consequences. “One of the ways that we have to put pressure upon governments to respect their legal obligations is by demonstrating our willingness to defend human rights and be against injustices,” he said, emphasizing that the current situation went far beyond legal issues. “We have, all of us, a moral responsibility.”
— ends —
Teleprompter
Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for joining us at this press conference by 4 special procedures mandate holders.
We have 4 speakers to get through today, so let me introduce them very quickly and we can get started on the podium.
We have the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Miss Francesca Albanese.
Next to me is the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Margaret Satythwaite, and we also have the Special Rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights, Professor Ben Sol, and Mr George Katrugolos, who is the independent expert on international order.
They will brief you today on the ongoing human rights violation in violations in Gaza and across the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
We will begin with opening remarks by Misal Benezi, followed by the other speakers.
[Other language spoken]
You have the flip.
Sorry, yes, I, you know, one never gets used So good.
Good afternoon everyone.
After 14 months, I'm burned in by having to yet again explain the unbelievable amount of suffering and grief the Palestinians people, the Palestinian people, have endured in the last year for crimes the Member States have the clear responsibility of preventing, stopping and punishing, among which is genocide.
Today, the situation on the ground is catastrophic.
The crisis in Gaza has become a global crisis that concerns all of us.
And that it's why I'm particularly humbled and honoured today to stand before you with colleagues who are legal experts in their own domain and whose analysis captures equally critical aspect of the very of of this very deep crisis.
But let me start by putting the occupied Palestinian territory in your mind again as it disappears from the from the news.
In Gaza, more than 44,000 people have been a certain killed by Israeli snipers and bombs, 70% of whom women and children from the beginning.
More than 100,000 and counting are the wounded.
Thousands are are unable to be treated, let alone cured for the most basic diseases.
And if it was not enough, they will now have to go through the 2nd winter living in makeshift camps without adequate food or clothing.
The entire population of Gaza has been uprooted and often multiple times.
Hundreds of thousands have lost their homes forever.
Children don't know if they will be able to get back to school.
In the past four months alone, nearly 19,000 children have been hospitalised for acute malnutrition.
Famine today is a reality.
And this is all the more outrageous as we see humanitarian aid being blocked in the West Bank, including E Jerusalem.
Militarised Israeli security operation, settlement expansion, evictions, demolitions, violence and threats of annexation are inflicting further pain and injustice on the Palestinians who are subjected to an unlawful and intensified shot to **** policy.
It's nearly 800 that the Palestinians who have been killed and 1000 injured this year amidst ongoing restriction on their movement and access to basic services, livelihood and farm lands.
[Other language spoken]
Impunity.
This is the keyword to understand the barbaric scale of this that Israeli genocide has taken since it's birth.
Israel has never been held to the same standard as as most of the members of the international community.
Israel has defied countless General Assembly, Security Council resolutions, International Court of Justice of advisory opinion, and has targeted UN personnel and facilities and also declared the personas non grata, not only me but the Secretary General himself, without ever bearing consequences.
There are never sanctions on Israel.
Judicial processes are either ignored or circumvented, and trade continues and diplomatic ties remain intact.
Member states seem to to be paralysed or struck, many of them still normalising the occupation, the repression of the Palestinian people, depicting their resistance in the territory that Israel occupies as terrorism or at best as a tantrum of an unruly population incapable of abiding in silence to what the international community has decided as its faith.
It is unconscionable to me that many in the United, for many in the United Nations, Palestine continues to represent an issue to be negotiated where the Palestinians have to accept sooner or later the status quo, their fight to self determination reduced to a humanitarian crisis and accept quietly the loss of the the loss of their land, their failure to confront the imperialistic force of settler colonialism.
As a human rights expert and as a human being, I have to stand against this and I missed all of this structural injustice.
I want to conclude with three main message, just to ensure justice, accountability.
First, the halting of any direct or indirect arms transfer to Israel.
Second, the revision, the revision of Israel credentials to be part of the United Nations to show that impurity will no longer be tolerated in this situation if he wants to fulfil its mission to preserve the security and peace for all.
And 3rd and last, resolving once and for all the question of Palestine in line with international law means three things.
And the genocide now and the occupation by September next year.
Because this is this is the deadline that the General Assembly has given Israel to comply with International Court of Justice advisory opinion, which has ordered this year that Israel dismantles the occupation, the settlement and the control over natural resources totally and unconditionally, no exception.
This means realising the right of starting to realise the right of self determination of the Palestinian people.
Four, we need to understand and embrace once and for all that this is not a conflict.
Conflict as a term is a misnomer here because there is a settler colonial framework at play when it we talk of Palestine.
And I'm not using this language as an ideological slogan, but as a framework capable of accurately describing the reality in the occupied Palestinian territory that is becoming more, more catastrophic as as the time passes.
[Other language spoken]
Sorry, sorry.
The next speaker will be the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Miss Margaret Satwit, Special Rapporteur of the floor.
Thank you very much.
So I will be speaking briefly about the issue of impunity and the efforts that the international community has been making to end that impunity and steps that must be taken now.
So 76 years ago, the UN General Assembly recognised the need for a permanent international court to deal with atrocities of the kind prosecuted during World War 2.
The International Criminal Court is the legacy of the Nuremberg Trials.
To never allow war crimes and crimes against humanity, such as those committed during World War 2GO unpunished, and to ensure that those who commit the gravest crimes face justice in a court of law.
The IC CS role is more crucial than ever.
On November 21st, the IC CS Pretrial Chamber unanimously issued warrants of arrest for Mr Benjamin Netanyahu and Mr Yoav Gallant for crimes against humanity and war crimes committed from at least October 8th, 2023 until at least sorry, May 20th, 2024, which was the day the prosecution filed the applications for arrest warrants.
It also unanimously issued a warrant of arrest for Mr Muhammad Diab Ibrahim El Masri, commonly known as DAFE, for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes committed on the territory of the State of Israel and the State of Palestine from at least the date of seven October 2023.
Of course, while Dave is suspected to have been killed by Israeli forces, the court could not verify this.
I recall that these arrest warrants were issued by three judges of different nationalities by an independent court who found that there was a reasonable that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the crimes had been committed based on evidence about conduct that meets the standards for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
In their issuance, the arrest warrants reaffirm that all victims of the most grave crimes are human beings deserving of accountability.
If every person is equal before the law, these arrest warrants demonstrate that the same is true for both victims and alleged perpetrators, in line with their obligations under the Rome Statute.
I underline that Member States should cooperate fully with the ICC in line with Article 86 of the Rome Statute and just to talk about a few of the things that Member States are obligated to do under this Rome Statute.
First, they must aid in the identification and sharing of the whereabouts of persons or the location of relevant items.
The taking of evidence, including testimony underoath and the production of evidence, including expert opinions and reports necessary to the Court.
The service of documents, including judicial documents.
The facilitation of the voluntary appearance of persons as witnesses or experts before the court.
The examination of places or sites, including the examination of grave sites, the execution of searches and seizures, the provision of records and documents, including official records and documents, the protection of victims and witnesses, and the preservation of evidence.
And I highlight in particular that in accordance with procedures under national law, State party States parties must comply with requests for arrest and surrender of persons sought by the court who are found on their territory.
I recall that the Rome Statute in Article 27 makes clear that official capacity as head of state or government shall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility, and that any immunities or special rules arising under national or international law which may attach to the official capacity of a person shall not bar the Court's jurisdiction.
The Court has recently made plain that States parties have the obligation to arrest and surrender anyone sought by an ICC arrest warrant, even if such an individual is a head of state and regardless of whether the individual state of nationality is a party to the Rome Statute.
The Court has clarified that no waiver of immunity is required in such circumstances under Article 98 of the Statute, even for heads of state.
Since the arrest warrants were issued, dozens of states have affirmed their support for the court and their intent to comply with their legal obligations under the Rome Statute.
However, I'm gravely concerned that a number of states have reacted in exactly the opposite manner, verbally attacking the court, it's judges and the prosecutor at time and language that is entirely inappropriate.
Officials from one state labelled the court as anti-Semitic and elected officials from others.
Another state characterised the court as a dangerous joke.
Another called the ICCA Kangaroo Court and disparage the prosecutors in terms I will not repeat.
Some of these statements have included threats of sanctions against court officials, and some have threatened even worse.
[Other language spoken]
officials in particular have made threats of sanctions against the prosecutor.
And one US senator issued a ****** to specific states that are members of the ICC, saying, quote, to any ally, Canada, Britain, Germany, France, if you try to help the ICC, we're going to sanction you.
Another US senator threatened military action.
Let me be very clear.
Threats against the ICC promote a culture of impunity.
They make a mockery of the decades long quest to place law above force and atrocity and sanctions in particular are shocking possibility.
If carried out, they would appear to amount to offences against the administration of justice under Article 70 of the Rome Statute.
Now that we have arrest warrants, we know that any effort to punish or impede or intimidate an official of the court, or to retaliate against an official of the court on account of duties performed by that official, amount to one of these crimes under Article 70.
But we shouldn't ignore quieter steps.
The budget of the Office of the Prosecutor was recently cut during the Assembly of State Parties.
What I figured on the back of an envelope was around 10% from its proposed budget.
These cuts, in strong contrast to the extremely supportive budgetary approach during the preparation of the Ukraine investigation, raises questions.
I call on all states to respect the Court's independence as a judicial institution and to protect the independence and impartiality of those who work within the Court.
Impeding the work of the Court and its prosecutor in particular is detrimental not only for accountability in the occupied Palestinian territory, but for international justice as a whole.
We're concerned to see some countries that consider themselves champions of the rule of law taking actions to intimidate an independent court and to thwart accountability.
These actions stand in stark contrast with other efforts.
As I've said, and as parties to the Rome Statute of the ICC, states parties should refrain from attacking or interfering with the Court's independence and should instead take affirmative steps to protect the ICC in the face of ongoing threats and intimidation.
Ethical behaviour and attitudes on the part of States parties, including in their public communications, are essential for promoting the rule of law, the protection of human rights, and for ensuring public trust in systems of governance at the international level.
To end, it's time to end the double standards.
International justice exists or does not.
We can't abide justice for people from some States and the protection of the law for some people with impunity for people from other States and an abandonment of the resulting victims.
Attacks on an independent on independent judges and prosecutors of the highest level Criminal Court created by the the international community to punish the worst crimes are shocking and beyond the pale.
Threats by some states against others that are aimed at coercing them into ignoring their international law commitments are outrageous.
States that advance the rule of law and count themselves as among the most law abiding in the world must come off the sidelines to defend the court, its judges, its prosecutor and all of its personnel.
[Other language spoken]
[Other language spoken]
And next we'll have the special rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights, Professor Ben Saul.
Good afternoon, everybody.
Delighted to be here.
My job is to encourage governments to respect human rights while countering terrorism.
And I think one of the striking features of the last 14 months is how Israel has used counterterrorism rhetoric to justify exceptional extreme violence against Palestinians, accompanied by a chronic dehumanisation of the Palestinian people, which of course allows them to be killed in large numbers.
At the political level, and also through the legal measures that Israel has taken the international community through international law, the General Assembly Security Council have on many occasions repeated and insisted that all countries must respect human rights and humanitarian law when countering terrorism without exception.
That's because human rights and humanitarian law already accommodate security concerns.
It's a balance between protecting people and allowing militaries to fight, so you don't need to go outside that legal framework in order to effectively and successfully deal with an adversary in an armed conflict.
The problem here, of course, is that Israel, as our colleagues have already said, has enjoyed impunity for many, many decades, which has emboldened it to become increasingly violent and increasingly lawless.
And this last campaign in in Gaza is unprecedented in the the history of warfare in in recent years.
It's not just that there have been extreme violations, which have been well documented.
So we all over the past 14 months have seen deliberate attacks on civilians, indiscriminate attacks, disproportionate attacks, starvation, denial of humanitarian relief, suppression of NGOs and UNRWA as terrorists, a complete lack of credible accountability through the Israeli military and civilian justice system.
That's all pretty obvious and and on the record.
What I find more shocking in in a way is that I've been working on humanitarian law for 25 years.
I've cooperated technically with the Israeli Defence Forces on many occasions in the past, and I know they have excellent lawyers, very, very good international humanitarian lawyers.
So when they unleash a campaign of violence like this, they know what they're doing.
And part of this story, which I, I, I don't think has been explored quite so much, is just how Israel has enabled this violence by taking very extreme, exceptional interpretations of international humanitarian law to, to impose a kind of cloak of legality on what they're doing.
So they've expanded the definition of what is a military objective.
They've expanded the category of people they call fighters who can be attacked.
They impose very large numbers on the civilian casualty counts that they tolerate in targeting.
They've used artificial intelligence to bypass the usual precautions that must be taken before launching attacks.
They've loosened the rules on authorising detention of militants, removing effective judicial control or access to lawyers for very protracted periods.
They've authorised controls on the distribution of humanitarian relief, ostensibly on security grounds, which are are not tolerated by a proper interpretation of humanitarian law.
Likewise, authorising displacement of civilians in a manner which is outside the the mainstream.
And this is part of a historical pattern.
I mean it's the same story if you go back on the way Israel has sought to legalise its settlements in the West Bank, housing evictions, exploitation of Palestinian natural resources, claims to to territory, etcetera.
And the problem, of course, is, as we've all mentioned, much of this has gone.
Unchallenged by the states that matter and that can have a real influence to change Israel's behaviour on the ground to, to, to wind up.
I just mentioned that this is something which is expanding a kind of contagion that's going well beyond the occupied Palestinian territories.
And in the past year, many of us have commented publicly on the kind of lawlessness that Israel has also been been unleashing on its neighbours.
So if you think just in in recent days in Syria, destruction of the Syrian Air Force when there are no pilots because Syria has no functioning government or military that can fly those planes at the moment.
The attacks on the buffer zone in the the Syrian Golan Heights.
We've seen in Lebanon indiscriminate attacks through the the pager explosions, attacks on Hezbollah banks calling them military objectives when they're just financial institutions.
And again, it goes back to their exploitation of interpretations of humanitarian law in Iran, attacks on multiple occasions which are not in self defence according to international law.
So of course all of this is enormously destructive of the international legal order.
If lawlessness on this scale and of this extremity has no consequences, then it sends a signal to everybody else that you can behave in the in the same way, and the whole system begins to break down.
It's encouraging that a bunch of countries have sought to hold Israel to account, and it's a very strong legal movement on on many, many fronts.
But ultimately, you need the states that matter to bring the pressure to bear on Israel.
Germany and the United States supply 99% of the weapons exported to Israel.
They could stop this conflict overnight if they stopped the weapons that **** the Palestinians.
[Other language spoken]
Thank you, special Abita.
And next we will have the independent expert on international order, Mr George Katsukalos.
You have the flow.
What is going to happen in Palestine, in Lebanon, in Syria, is the ultimate litmus test for the survival of the international legality of what we call the United Nations system of rules.
It is true that the multilateralism was under pressure even before we had the important states withdrawing from agreements like the Paris Agreement, from important treaties of control of armaments.
But in the last period we have unprecedented attacks against the United Nations themselves.
Prime Minister Netanyahu and to no other place than in the General Assembly, spoke of the of the United Nations as the House of Darkness, as an anti semit swamp, and thus the Flat Earth society.
This has been followed by the declaration of the General Secretary Persona Lagrata and of direct attacks against the peacekeeping missions, the blue helmets of the United Nations.
And of course, we have the continuing humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza.
We have the recent attacks, more than 350 airstrikes in Syria.
Fortunately, next to this flagrant violations of the international order, we have some ray of hope, some rays of hope regarding the end of impunity.
We have the important decisions of the International Court of Justice regarding the illegality of the occupation by Israel of all Palestinian territories after 1967.
We had the important decision of issuance of the warrants against the Prime Minister and Minister of Defence of Israel.
But again, we're at crossroads.
Are we going to follow again double standards that the General Prosecutor himself has said that he has been approached by a **** official who reminded him that his court, the International Criminal Court, it is not for Israel, it has been established for Africa and for facts like Putin.
Are we going to accept that we have indeed 2 categories of state, two different sets of international norms?
We should not, because that is going to be the end of anything we know about the international law, international legality.
There are some priorities now for the states, first of all, to comply with these important decisions to stop sending arms to Israel, to impose sanctions for the expansion of the settlements and to stop any thought about annexation in the West Bank or in Gaza.
Moreover, an immediate recognition of the State of Palestine as a first and very timid step to a diplomatic solutions.
It is a moment of decisions for governments, especially governments like the Europeans, who would still claim that they are supporting a European Union of values, principles and of law.
But there's also a critical moment for all of us.
We have moral responsibilities, and we must assume them.
Many thanks for your attention.
Thank you to all of the experts.
And they will now take questions.
And as usual, we'll begin with questions from the room and then move to those of you online.
[Other language spoken]
Please state your name and organisation when you ask a question.
Yes, Hi, my name is Anya Espero and I'm working for Agence France Press Should I ask you the question in English or in French?
[Other language spoken]
OK, so the English, English.
OK, so a question concerning what you have asked today.
You have asked many things, but today, at the same time, there is the discussion of the General Assembly on the resolution.
And I was wondering if you want to use your perspective on this resolution, which is basically only asking for a ceasefire.
Do you think that's enough?
Or do you think that the international community should have put more expectations in this resolution?
[Other language spoken]
Fine if you you can answer and if others wants but.
Yes, I might disagree with you that we asked many things.
We asked one simple, very simple thing, all of ours in unison to compliance with international law.
It's not charity, it's an obligation.
And I will not comment on a resolution that I've not read in its final form.
I just want to say that again, the path is clear.
It's a moment of crisis.
I agree with with many who see the present and the future very bleak.
But as it happens on aeroplanes that are about to, I mean, going through turbulence, the lights on the floor are there and the lights the, the enlightened path is international law.
As I said, end of the genocide college, call it ceasefire, I'm fine.
Ceasefire now, then end of the occupation by next year and then end of the apartheid.
Because this is the only way to ensure that Palestinians and the Israelis will be able to live in freedom, dignity and peace in the land comprised between the river and the sea.
And there is a lot to do about that because it's not just Israel's impunity and Israel's violations of international law, which are countless.
It's the violations of international law.
[Other language spoken]
I mean, I tend to blame the West because this is the part of the world I become, I, I, I belong to, I come from.
And it's the most influential, but also the rest.
There are so many responsibilities.
So we need to look also as a civil society to make sure that when I say justice starts at home, the responsibility of public and private actors is finally comes finally under check.
[Other language spoken]
[Other language spoken]
[Other language spoken]
Actually, the ICC decision against Netanyahu and Gallant is just against two people.
So I know the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice, but my question is, have you like a list or are you preparing like a list of all the names that are responsible against the, you know, in this genocide, not just officers in in Israel, but also all this person in other countries, but especially in Israel.
[Other language spoken]
Is the question for the Special Rapporteur.
I think it's an important question because it just, it allows me to say that, of course, these two arrest warrants are only part of the story.
As my colleagues have already said, every state around the world has the obligation to ensure, uphold, protect international humanitarian law and to end any genocide.
And that means that they should be taking all affirmative steps to ensure that they're preserving evidence that they are taking steps to cooperate with those bodies that are undertaking efforts to bring people to justice.
And then they should be using whatever is available within their own legal system to take the steps they need to hold people to account as well.
So I talked specifically about the ICC because I'm very concerned about the attacks by different states on that body and because it has a very it has an important role to play in holding those at the highest levels to account.
But of course, anyone who's engaged in crimes against humanity, genocide, and war crimes should be held accountable for those crimes as well.
Thank you very much, Meg, if I may chime in with a with a complimentary information.
The system that the International Criminal Court is premised upon is based on complementarity.
Therefore, the role of national courts, I keep on saying, is so relevant, not only because there are, there are, I mean, there is a universal jurisdiction on crimes like genocide, but also because to a, to a large extent, the perpetrators are also nationals of other countries.
And therefore they should be held accountable under their national framework.
And I'm referring to nationals who have been fighting in the Israeli army, individuals who live in the settlements and might have committed violence against the Palestinians that are many who have done the nationalities, western nationalities, but also Arab nationalities, a number of them.
And there are Western citizens who are selling and purchasing property stolen from the Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territory.
I recently discovered that this is this happens in, in, in Canada and elsewhere in, in, in the world.
And also there are businesses, charities, pension funds, banks for this.
You will have to wait for my next report because this is what I'm investigating.
But again, it's it's an incredible realm of untapped opportunities for justice.
I just add that, you know, international justice and foreign universal jurisdiction war crimes cases are of course absolutely critical, but they'll only ever prosecute a very, very small number of perpetrators.
That's why Israel's obligations under the Geneva Convention to investigate and prosecute its own war criminals is 1, which is absolutely essential to fulfil.
The problem being, over many decades the Israeli military justice system has proven in most cases utterly incapable of holding Israeli nationals to account.
When prosecutions are brought in rare cases, they often end in very light penalties relative to the severity of the of the crimes.
I mean, ultimately what is needed is a broad based truth and reconciliation and justice process in Palestine.
And for that you need the right political conditions.
You need a change of of away from extreme right wing governments, which Israel has been afflicted by in recent years, like we've seen positive examples in other countries.
I mean, I think Colombia is a great example of a of a political and social system that has moved past that really protracted violence over many, many decades and is seriously trying to bring both sides to account in a broad based process, which deals with thousands of perpetrators, not just the very senior leaders.
And I think we we should expect more on the Middle East.
We shouldn't just expect that a couple of leaders might face, face justice, you know, in theory, because there's an arrest warrant.
We should demand that all victims receive the accountability and reparation they're entitled to through tracking down, hunting down every person on either side who has committed international crimes.
[Other language spoken]
We'll take this question and then go on appliance certain on the shoulder of was having the national.
[Other language spoken]
[Other language spoken]
Frapposi le peacekeepers don't xenotropic, said Sevromo Teresa Cablolo do see the responsibility of Vernon Asuni.
[Other language spoken]
[Other language spoken]
[Other language spoken]
[Other language spoken]
[Other language spoken]
And then we'll move to questions online and come back to the room.
Yeah, thank you for taking my question.
[Other language spoken]
So just to follow up on on that.
I was just wondering if you've had conversations with people indicating that there is a movement towards wanting to to exclude Israel and remove their voting rights.
And then my other question was on Syria.
I'm wondering if you are concerned that what's happening in Syria right now is removing the focus from what's going on in in Gaza or maybe it's highlighting as you were mentioning Israel's actions more broadly given their their air strikes.
If you could just comment on that.
[Other language spoken]
I will be brief on the on the first question, but also I would like to invite my colleagues to comment on the second part of your question.
Honestly, I've I've had engagement with regional groups and individual states on my recommendations.
I would say that most of the discussions I've LED, we're on the need to impose the sanctions on Israel to stop the trade of, of arms, oil and and goods and not just what is sold, what is transferred directly and directly what is purchased from Israel.
Because it's incredible that are member state that are still trading and buying surveillance services and weapons that have been tested on the Palestinians.
So honestly, this has taken more of my bilateral engagement when I was in New York and after the presentation of my report.
I've heard there are member states from the global S picking up on that.
Again, the the fact of having that on the table is to remind people of what complying with international law means and what not complying with international law might imply, because it seems that it's really totally can be neglected at at Libertum as it pleases.
May I leave the other colleagues to respond on the second part of the question?
Yeah, Look, briefly, I'd say, of course, States and the media have a pretty short attention span and can only deal with one crisis at a time, it seems.
I mean, this was the complaint Ukraine made when Gaza happened, that no one was talking about Ukraine anymore.
And then and now it's, you know, maybe, maybe Syria.
I mean, I think George as a former foreign minister can also talk about what, what states can do on more than one front at at once.
But, you know, we, we haven't been talking about Sudan virtually at all for 14 months.
And it's one of the worst conflicts on the on the planet.
So I think governments and the media should do more to to deal with multiple crises, which will always be the case at once.
Certainly the United Nations does its best to do that, but often that's not picked up in the in the media or or by states.
What I'd like to add is that Syria is indeed part of a pattern.
As Ben has said, it is another case of the lawlessness that Israel demonstrates in the area, attacks without provocation against a sovereign state.
But it is not just a part of what Israel is doing in the area.
Syria is a case that interests above all its own citizens who are involved in in a very, very ****** civil war for more than 15 years now.
The situation is very fluid.
Many factors are present there.
It was not just a conflict between various political, religious, ethnic groups within the country.
It is another case of proxy war.
What is important now is to have a full respect of the amnesty declared, protection of minorities, all minorities, but especially Christians and Alawitz, and hoping that in the future we are going to have an inclusive future for Syria, including all the population, regardless of religious or ethnic divides.
It is not going to be an easy task, but who could provide?
Who could foresee just the 15 days ago, the fall of the Assad regime, Of course, a precondition for everything there.
It's what all of us have underscored, the full respect of international legality, which is not just the sovereignty of states.
This is, of course, 1 imperative, let's say rule.
It is also the protection of human rights of everybody and especially the minorities.
Just one comment because again, I mean, I might have heard my disgruntlement at the work that corporate media have done in general on Palestine and the the Palestinians.
But I would say also to the detriment of the Israelis because the situation is not conducive for anyone.
But Western media will have in particular to interrogate themselves on the the role they have played in manufacturing consensus by obscuring, muting, silencing to certain realities and and supporting the.
I mean the narrative that that came out around what is been labelled the war again between Hamas and and and Israel instead of talking of what has been going on from the perspective of the victims.
So I mean, again, I hope, I know that Palestine might fall off the heart of politicians and the media, but no, it will, this will not stop the revolution that is mounting for justice, that impact, I mean, many young people see in Palestine and the epitome of so many injustices.
And I'm I'm sure this will not stop.
[Other language spoken]
We're going to take a question quickly online from Isabel Sacco of FA First.
[Other language spoken]
[Other language spoken]
[Other language spoken]
Good afternoon for the Spanish news Agency.
Effect, it has been said.
That that if the United States and Germany stop supplying weapons to Israel, the the attack against the Gaza population would stop immediately.
[Other language spoken]
My question is in what, to what extent the political leaders of these countries, I mean Germany and the United States, who has approved the export of these weapons, can be also considered criminal, criminally responsible under international law?
[Other language spoken]
[Other language spoken]
[Other language spoken]
And look, under international law, every government has an obligation not to export weapons to a country where there would be a clear risk that they would be used to violate international humanitarian law.
So this is an obligation under the Geneva Conventions, the International Arms Trade Regulation regime.
It's an obligation under the Genocide Convention in terms of the duty to prevent genocide if there's a risk of that in the in the other country.
And it can also entail criminal responsibility under International Criminal law in certain circumstances.
So the thresholds are a bit higher than for the general rules on governments themselves, but it it, it absolutely can lead to criminal, criminal responsibility.
I think part of the problem links to what I said before, that some of these states have themselves been interpreting international humanitarian law in an extreme way so that they don't see that what Israel is doing is unlawful.
I mean, the United States, for example, except that you can target war, sustaining economic infrastructure, things like banks that fund Hezbollah, let's say.
And that's an extreme interpretation.
I mean, almost every other military on the planet does not accept that interpretation of international humanitarian law.
So partly the problem is a legal one on their side as well.
But there's also, I'm sure in some of these cases, governments getting very good legal advice from very good government lawyers, and then the politicians are just not acting on that.
And there's political decisions made to keep supporting Israel no matter what, right, no matter how extreme the violence.
There is no red line really for for some of these countries.
And we know the political reasons for that in in different countries, Germany for the the very particular historical reasons, the US because of its long political alliance with, with, with Israel, for better or, or, or worse.
But it hasn't brought Israel security.
So that kind of uncritical friendship, no matter how your friend behaves, has been a disaster for Israel.
It's been a disaster for the Israeli people.
It's been a disaster for security in the broader region and for the human rights of Palestinians as well.
And this is 70 years and counting now.
[Other language spoken]
My colleague has given all you need to know about the legal aspect of your question.
I want to refer to another aspect.
I mentioned in my first presentation that we have all of us a moral responsibility.
One of the ways that we have to pressure upon governments to respect their legal obligations is by demonstrating our willness to defend human rights and be against injustices.
This happened with the encampments, with massive demonstrations throughout Europe and also the United States.
It is imperative that this kind of, let's say, diplomacy of citizens is going to continue.
It is not without impact.
The elections of the other United States have been partially influenced by that.
So governments must have the message that what they are doing is not without impact, even regarding their own selfish interest of survival.
Thank you, Nick, first from the New York Times, and then we have quite a few questions still.
[Other language spoken]
Actually, Mr Paul's, Mr Souls already, I've hardly spoken on this, but you, you mentioned that IDF has very, very good international lawyers who know what they're doing.
What's quite striking is that after 14 months of of intense hostilities and very detailed research by human rights groups and others, we have not seen any change in the conduct of hostilities by the IDF.
They, they don't seem to have amended any of their tactics or approaches in the light of any of the criticism that has been levelled at the way they are conducting hostilities.
And I'm wondering what your conclusion is about what that says about international humanitarian law and the prospects of getting prosecutions on the conduct of hostilities.
Not just the conduct of hostilities hasn't changed, but we've also seen in the ICC warrants in the justifications of the UK have made on changing the licences for for weapons exports.
The focus has been on things like starvation, denial of humanitarian aid, treatment of detainees.
It has not been on specific conduct of hostilities.
So yeah, back to where does that leave us in terms of whether or not we are not seeing extreme interpretations actually being now quite normalised.
[Other language spoken]
[Other language spoken]
I mean to give Israel a little bit of credit, I would say there were short moments in the last 14 years when usually in response to some US pressure drawing of red lines, there was a reduction, for example, in the number of **** explosive munitions used in densely populated urban areas.
And, and this would reduce casualties for a little while or there'd be a little bit of opening of the tap of humanitarian relief to let you know a few more trucks in here and there.
I mean, the problem has been of course, that the US has presented red lines to Israel.
Israel breaks them repeatedly.
And there are no consequences from the US.
So, you know, Israel has, has called EU SS bluff.
It knows it has rock solid political support and the US political system, no matter what it does.
I mean, whether it tortures people in in military custody, whether it obliterates most of the public infrastructure and housing in Gaza, kills over 40,000 people, displaces, you know, everybody pretty much it, it can keep doing that, right?
And so unless the US who is the only one in the position to make Israel really change things on the ground, it'll keep, it'll keep doing it.
And as I mentioned, we've seen it emboldened in the neighbourhood as well in a bunch of other countries.
On the conduct of hostilities, yeah, I think the International Criminal Court absolutely picked the low hanging fruit because those are the easiest cases to bring on starvation and and some of those more obvious charges.
It's absolutely not the end of the story for the International Criminal Court.
And I can guess with with confidence that in come, you know, in in future, whether it's near or far, the ICC is absolutely investigating conduct of hostilities cases.
They're more difficult to prove right because you have to know what was in the mind of the commander at the time that the strike was launched, because humanitarian law asks questions like what would be the military advantage of launching a strike?
What would be the civilian casualties anticipated?
And so unless you know what information they had and what information they failed to seek, if they needed more and better information, then it's not easy to draw conclusions about whether that absolutely is a violation, certainly to a criminal standard or not.
I mean, when we're talking about arms exports, the the standard is lower than a criminal standard.
That's why you can, you know, more confidently make those judgments that there have been these kinds of conduct of hostilities violations.
But there's absolutely evidence out there.
I mean, incriminating evidence by Israeli forces themselves recording themselves on, on social media.
There are some leaks or informants from within the Israeli Defence Forces.
You can build up a pattern of conduct over time on things like use of **** explosive munitions in in urban areas where there are, you know, it's very difficult to say that that would be consistent with humanitarian law.
And we've got, you know, lots of good investigative journalism as well, which has been exposing some of some of these violations.
So I think this story has a long way to run yet.
Just one thing to add, which is that both of the Israeli individuals were charged with directly, directly directing attacks against civilian population as civilian superiors to the military commanders.
And I think it's exactly the reason that my colleague has already said they're evidentiary issues here.
And these are the the most straightforward charges for now.
I do imagine we will see charges more on the conduct of hostilities later.
May I concerning the Germany in particular, but other states as well.
There is the International Court of Justice this year in the proceedings initiated by Nicaragua versus Germany has reminded all states of their international obligation related relating to the transfer of arms to parties to armed conflict in order to avoid the risk that such arms might be used to violate not just the Genocide Convention, but also the the Geneva Conventions.
And it the court has also reminded that these obligations are incumbent upon Germany as a state party to this convention in its supplies of arms to Israel.
So again, they there has been quite a progression in significant progression in legal developments and justice in the case of Palestine.
The problem is, as I often said, the international law is as strong and effective as the will of state to abide it, abide by it.
And this is this is not not the case.
But I wanted to make another comment on, on the conduct of hostilities because I, I mean, I've, I've been one of those investigating those conducts from from close, but also from afar, looking at the ensemble of the violations together, looking at the jurisprudence existing in the case of genocide.
Of course, of course there are war crimes and crimes against humanity that have been committed.
And frankly, Palestinians have experienced war crimes and crimes against humanity for decades.
And as the International Court of Justice says that in order to determine genocidal intent, 1 is to look at the conduct holistically.
My colleague mentioned a number of elements, like the repetition of the same pattern.
I would like to refer all of you to the work, to the incredible work that has been done not just by Amnesty International or as as investigating several parts of what has happened of the Israeli conduct.
But also Forensic.
Forensic Architecture, which has produced maps of all the assaults and incidents that have transformed the land of Gaza into the Westland that it is today.
Which have the military ******* that has ungrounded funded large suites of of Gaza and how hospitals, schools, churches, mosques, refugee camps and distribution of aid and medical care have been decimated.
[Other language spoken]
This is what I argue in my in my report, my last report at the totality of the conduct against the totality of the members of the group.
As such, the Palestinians have been targeted as such.
And this is not my invention.
This is in the words of the Israeli leaders and the soldiers who have been who have become wilful executioners.
Also would like to remind everyone that I mean in a war the the aim, the objective, the legal objective.
What is acceptable in a war is the defeat of the enemy.
When the objective is total destruction.
And this has been and again it continues.
The fact that it continues in the face of all these developments at the legal level, the denunciation, it shows that when the objective is destruction, while probably the the conduct should be interrogated as a genocidal 1 can.
I start one point on, I'd recommend the Commission of inquiry on Palestine as another good source of documentation of violations of conduct of hostilities, which is, which is quite useful on Germany, you know, in relation to Syria in the past, Germany launched A structural criminal justice investigation into patterns of war crimes, crimes against humanity in that in that situation and has proceeded to prosecute a a bunch of people in relation to ISIS violence in Syria.
This is precisely the kind of mechanism that you could use to investigate the situation in Palestine.
And unfortunately Germany's been doing the opposite, right?
I mean, the German intelligence agency has listed the whole boycott, divestment, sanction movement worldwide as an extremist organisation and subjected it to intelligence investigation and, and surveillance.
You know, lots of Western countries, including my own, I'm from Australia, impose sanctions, but only on their geopolitical adversaries.
You know, the, the, the easy targets like Iran or, or Venezuela or Myanmar.
We never impose sanctions on our friends.
And yet we say that sanctions are also tools to enforce human rights and international law and against violations of, of, of humanitarian law.
And it's no wonder that vast parts of the world and the the global S feel like the international justice system is discredited because you're just using it as a political tool of your own foreign policy.
You're not serious about applying the legal tools you have to enforce international law in an impartial, independent manner.
And that, of course, has ripple effects everywhere because people say, well, you know, when you ask us to sanction Russia on Ukraine, why would we do that if you're not doing that on Israel or other situations where your your friends are are lawless under international law.
[Other language spoken]
Yes, we take the question in a row.
[Other language spoken]
[Other language spoken]
I'm from Yomi Shimbu and Japanese newspaper.
I want to follow up a question of what the the Israeli forces are doing in Syria after the the fall of the Assad regime.
Israeli forces are continuing continuing to attack the key military sites and destroy the remaining Syrian Army bases.
And their argument is that they want to make sure those weapons will not fall into the hands that that are opposed to the existence of Israel.
So how do you defy the Israeli argument?
[Other language spoken]
Look, there is absolutely no basis under international law to preventively or pre emptively disarm a country you don't like.
I mean, if that were the case, it would be a recipe for global chaos because lots of countries have adversaries they would like to see without, without weapons.
This is this is completely lawless that there is absolutely no basis in in international law to do it.
But it's a continuation of what Israel has been doing in Syria for at least a decade.
So many, many hundreds of preventive attacks have been launched by Israeli forces in Syria to destroy Hezbollah weapons dumps, storage facilities in circumstances where there is no armed attack from Hezbollah on Israel, from Syria.
And that would be the only circumstance in which you could use self defence against Hezbollah in Syria.
So it's different from the situation in Lebanon because there is a a hot conflict there.
But you can't just, you know, follow your enemy wherever they are in the world and bomb them in, in some third country, which is, which has been Israel's approach.
It's also done in of course, in other ways.
And we've we've commented on this previously through campaigns of assassinations of adversaries in in third countries, including in quite a few NUM number of cases of civilians.
I mean, think of the multiple assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists in over the last 10-15 years.
These aren't military targets.
Even if it were a war, you couldn't **** them.
And yet that's what Israel has a long history of doing to its adversaries.
[Other language spoken]
We take have a question online from Carmen of El Tiempo.
[Other language spoken]
[Other language spoken]
[Other language spoken]
Sorry.
[Other language spoken]
[Other language spoken]
So I was wondering if you're aware of any investigations already have in place under universal jurisdiction please?
Yes, but I don't feel comfortable on commenting on on that as of yet.
Any other question?
Any other questions from the room or anybody online?
[Other language spoken]
Thank you very much.
[Other language spoken]
[Other language spoken]
[Other language spoken]
So I'm working for Kyodo News here at the Pala.
[Other language spoken]
I just have a question regarding the number that you mentioned earlier.
I think I heard a 95% of the of the, the weapons provided to Israel are coming from Germany.
And can you just confirm the percentage, please?
[Other language spoken]
We can we can check for you.
It's it's 90 something ****, **** 90s, but which whether it's 9789, we we need to check that for you.
Any other questions?
[Other language spoken]
If there are no other questions, then we will close this press conference.
[Other language spoken]
Thanks to our speakers for being here and for briefing you.
And thank you for joining us.
And thank you for the interest in the work of the special reporters.