reference. to me, that is disturbing. congressman, we have to leave the question there. despite what a lot of people say, there is work and congress. drilling, apparently. they need to be careful, it might wake people up out here. appreciate the time, sir. thank you. thank, you boris. so israel, right now, is at the international court of justice, accused of showing genocidal intent towards palestinians in gaza. israel calls the claims false and baseless. coming up, what that could mean for the war against hamas.
will stake out a middle position. that it will order israel to negotiate and good faith, in good faith, to achieve a bilateral cease-fire with hamas, conditional on hamas. it will also stop rocket fire into this. it will in doing so align itself with the u.n. general assembly. which will have a majority calling for a cease-fire. that is what the court ultimately will order. not quite what south africa is asking for, but something that could potentially allow humanitarian crisis to be averted. south africa argued powerfully, there is no way to prevent the humanitarian crisis from escalating or descending into famine and disease without a cease-fire. i think the court will find a way to achieve that, even though strictly speaking it does not have jurisdiction over hamas. it cannot order hamas to do
for being with us. what did you think about south africa s argument today? i think south africa made a very powerful argument at the international court of justice following the prior case, las tablas cases like versus myanmar. it should find that south africa s claims are possible, there is a direct link between south africa s claims and the measures that it is seeking. that those measures are urgently needed to prevent a rubble harm to palestinian civilians. i also think south africa made a powerful moral arguments that the court should follow the law establish my prior cases without fear or favor, even though this is a very controversial case with high stakes in the court is likely to face criticism, even condemnation should they rule in south africa s favor. we ll talk of those measures and just a moment. i do want to talk about what israel is saying, which is this
that is the international criminal court. south africa has referred to the situation in palestine to the international criminal court, giving the prosecutor the power to investigate hamas as well as the israeli defense forces. technically, the court had that jurisdiction already, both south africa has supported the international criminal court in investigating individual criminal responsibility by hamas as well as members of the israeli defense forces. i think this particular charge of hypocrisy is miss directed and not founded in fact. you mentioned the measure, or measures that south africa is seeking here. south africa is claiming that israel is committing genocide against palestinians in gaza. something that obviously would take years to adjudicate. what they are also asking for is what is akin to a temporary restraining order against israel. something that would have more immediate impact. do you think that it would
prevail, if so, what does that mean and the long term? i think that south africa will prevail in part, some of the measures they are asking for our very straightforward. israel will not destroy evidence. it will allow fact finding missions to enter gaza, to uncover the facts and find out what is really going on on the ground. south africa is also asking the court to order israel to allow and facilitate humanitarian relief. something that israel is already obligated to do under international humanitarian law. now, south africa s big ask is that the court direct israel to immediately suspend its military operations in gaza. this is a big request. there is a precedent for it. that is what the court ordered russia to do. to suspend its military operations in ukraine. i do think that you will hear israel tomorrow argue that a similar order would not be appropriate in this case. my own view is that the court