boxes we also saw on gaza for going on in. definitely a quizzical look at us politics. the bottom line, the as well as long gaza has we live mostly on the west and um then technology to cut around 32000 alice jennings and just fine growing law physician and those weapons keep flowing. so who supplying as well, with the tools for genocide and could they be legal consequences? this is inside story, the hello and welcome to the program. i'm elizabeth put on them as well and has used the most modern military technology available to can own main more than 100000

people in gaza, language using their communities to rumble in the west. some of the was, which is companies are using the expertise of the engineers and technicians to support the conflict and boost their profits. they high tech munitions have taken the lives of defense, the civilians, and since, as the world watches on get west and politicians, notably in the u. s. a backing as well as it carries out one of the most about barrack assaults on a defenseless community in world history. how can modern civilization allow such slaughter? and will they be legal consequences for those helping a genocide a will, will be asking a panel of guests these questions and more in a few moments. but 1st, this report from will make will soon should have on israel's weapon supplies center to as well as well on garza popping weapons and technology supplied by western allies the united states as well as largest supplier according to an

armstrong, the data base compiled by the stucco. international piece research institute is well and bold, 68 percent of its buttons from the us. those from germany make up 28 percent of as well as ministry in boats. 10 for rise on 2022. 0 you end reports as the u. k. australia, canada, and phones also continuing supplies. they include aircraft massage times, technology and munition, including components for the s 35 cell phone, the use to attack gaza. the bird with several countries have decided to stop supplying almost is when the into the netherlands, belgy, japan, italy, and spain well as well, has enjoyed strong support from some countries in the e. u. it's foreign policy chief, has voice to so position to more on sales. how many times have you heard

the most plumbing to lead us on for a minute to the 100 will say to many people are being killed by them by the head. this is too much on the top, is not proportional. well, if you believe that too many people are being killed, maybe you should provide less arms. you know that to prevent so many people being killed. so that's what the, his accused is, well, of genocide at the international court of justice. but it could take years before any verdict has reached human rights. legal exports, bone that's sending weapons for the use and gaza is likely to violate international human goals. so to talk to and in february, a quote in the netherlands, ordered the country to quote the export of s 355 to jet, pulse to as well. as for the 1949 geneva conventions, states a legally bound to prevention, a side war crimes and crimes against humanity. opposition to the us as ministry

support for as well is cooling. we're dropping some food and we're dropping the bombs and the, and the tanks and the built bullets and everything else at the same time. that's what he's got to do. stop sending the money and the weapons as well as coming on to increase in criticism from countries and cuba institutions over on casa, yet, that will not continue without best and support on the consumption these, i'll just see the find side story of the. well, let's discuss, oldest with 3 experts in the field in washington dc, a san diego, the washington director of human rights watch and amsterdam when delivery is the co found a stop whopping handle an independent dutch campaign, a post trade. and also in washington dc. is brian for new ken?

he's a senior advisor for the us at the international crisis group. he focuses on developing policies and checks to decrease american reliance on military tools and foreign affairs. it's great to have all of you on the program this diego, i'll begin with you. why has your organization along with ox fence submitted this memorandum to the us government saying that israel's assurances that it's missing us dual credible well ox them as a humanitarian organization and human rights watch as a human rights organization, decided to come together and package the violations that we have seen israel and conduct in gaza in, in, in one document that we could send in to the u. s. government and say, look, if you are not going to assess israel's conduct, we will show you what we have seen. and israel's assurances that is going to use us

weapons to abide by international humanitarian law. that's the laws of war, should not be deemed credible. okay, it's interesting that you say, you know, you've set in the us government if you are not going to analyze as well as conduct because mr. finance and i'll bring you in here. us law requires officials to assess what the recipient of american military aid does with the weapons provide, as does it not to believe the bite and administration is doing this. that's great to us. law, us policy and international law require the united states to undertake assessments and monitor how us origin weapons are being used. respect to any partner giving us transfer some to. but the administration has repeatedly said that they're not undertaking the assessments. 5 law for compliance by the idea of policing east for a systematic fashion. and so it's really hard to see how the administration would credibly assess whether these assurance is receiving from is real,

are meaningful. if assurance is the israel's providing with respect to law, forbes lines, and then we can get into as well assurance as relating to the provision of humanitarian aid. so it's, it's a real problem if the administration has needed to remedy for months. now, as if a new can, you've advised the u. s. government governments in the past on military, on legal issues the say go, i believe you have to this definitive and why don't you think that the us government is doing the necessary assessments here as well. but the answers may be inconvenient for the policy director from the white house the, the person united states has not signaled that yet, but he is open to the conditioning aid or enforcing the conditions already built into the law of respect to arms transfers or us military assistance, so that's an overarching reason. i will say just bureaucratically to use carmen's

not to do this work. and this that means for a systematic fashion. it's frankly embarrassing that organizations like sarah is or is i just like mc international and our news organization to do an open source research are doing a better job at analyzing the kind of go studies in gaza and the use of us weapons in the us government seems to be doing. yeah, yeah, i mean you're saying that it could be inconvenient and certainly not just human rights organizations, but you and experts have cooled for the complete stopping of, of exports to israel at the moment. and one country where we have seen restrictions put in place, as of course, the netherlands off to adults court or the netherlands to hold the export of f, 355 to jet pots to israel. finding that there was a clear risk that they would be used to commit, facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian. though, i believe that we can actually hear from one of the noise is involved in that case

. that's less than the reason that we won is because the court says the exports to israel cannot go ahead. the phones, the supplies because of the results those arms are being used in human rights violations. and given that we know that so many states export to israel and the, the overall preference of the cause, a conflict must lead for all the other countries swell to the conclusion that the issue stops its export the rules that out for keys to come to the conclusion are rules that are binding. well, oh, almost every stage and a rule that she is national, humanitarian who is the honest truth treaty. it's 2 european calling position that says um, if there's a risk that owns a use will be used in human rights violations in the state of destiny. you cannot export. and this is

a binding rule that takes priority over any other interest. be of self defense, vitriol b, it's regional security. be can only interest for dramatic reasons. that's the very is let me bring you in your, in the answer them just how much of a victory is that dodge court ruling from groups such as yourself as well to be honestly, the absolutely astonished at the this court case was wrong because and many other cases, the district court had ruled that this decision should be a political decision and should not be based on, on your article uh, grounds. because all of this legislation, like many other concepts, international legislation, also you can also explore the rules, leave a little bit of political room for my not for and this is of course deliberate because governments want to control and decide on their own all 6 sport and not

have it to restrict it, but i think the fact that a, that there's also a key risk of, of, of genocide has certainly which the difficult and has the strength and, uh, the opinion of, of the detroit is. yeah. so it's, it's, it's not only a big victory in this specific case, but is also a big factory. and in all the, all the export control the situations because it says the human rights are more important than any other considerations. and states have to make provisions to, to take care of the human rights violations will not happen. okay. and certainly that is person and to know i'm mistaken, as we heard from the lawyer that it's the courses just responding to rules and laws that many of the countries must abide by mister v. as for the international court

of justice as well. and just how much does the, you know, wolf top court ruling in january that there was a plausible risk of genocide in gaza by israel. how much does that, you know, highlights the need, the strength, the clue for an odds and ball going is what i then could and should we be seeing other cases like the one in the netherlands. i do think so. it highlights the need in, in very stark relief and i'm surprised in fact that the u. s. government has not followed suit or at least put on the table to israel, the threat of conditioning aid or suspending aid. you know, there's also this issue of israel blocking humanitarian aid. that is also not a legal according to us laws that, that govern support to israel. so it, israel is blocking humanitarian aid. the us government is supposed to cut off all support to israel. and i think the era drops that you see in the united states do

the building of a porch and off the coast of god the these things say very clearly, we know that israel is blocking our aid and that's why we have to take these other extreme measures that are very inefficient and in fact sometimes dangerous to civilians. yeah, and it's really interesting to know that your memorandum not just mentioned the use of, you know, us weapons on the wall, bought israel systematically blocking aid. mr. for new could i want to talk to you about individual responsibility, you know, the us secretaries of state and defense have to determine whether it is rarely assurances of not violating international law, credible. and you and experts have gone that stage. officials, you know, involved in the export of arms that have been used in close violations of international human, nor can be criminally liable. so can, you know, could us officials do you think the process you said at quote such as the international criminal court on the universal jurisdiction?

so i think it's necessary to distinguish between legal standards and then the enforcement of the stance before in a court or body. so the us itself recognizes that if an individual provides practical assistance that facilitates law more violations, war crimes, the individual can be completed as an aide or to better of war crimes. and us has invoked the standard in the prosecution of contract mohammed for the $911.00 attacks done in guantanamo basis. the standards of the united states government itself is relying upon the question has been, how is that stand ever going to be enforced from you? i think it's likely in the, in the near term that us officials stand trial, for example, in, in europe under, um, you know, with the universal jurisdiction and the pick or european state. no, i don't think it's likely um, but the traces of the 0 probably over the long term because people have long

memories and it comes to a trusty crimes on the use itself as an engage and trying to build up normally into account ability. so it's to me it's, it's not impossible. i can see that decades don't road us officials may have trouble if they want to travel to europe. show up. but you think it's a lot like a because of political reasons. it sounds like but legally could they be a case? i think it would depend on the laws that me particular jurisdiction of what the laws are relating to the domestic laws in terms of enforcing the law for i think that it will depend upon their domestic standards on complicity rating and a bedding and the standards on the bedding is, is somewhat higher at the, at the end of the criminal court than it is under cause we are a natural law and the lot the us is trying to apply it at guantanamo bay. so it really will, depending on the, the, the laws, the individual states as well as for the will as you indicate. okay, and this, the very is, let me bring you in here because mr. fanatic and was talking about,

you know, different standards and different quotes. and this has been in court of this israel supplying or different countries supplying israel with weapons has been in the high court of justice in london for example. and the court ruled that the risk of weapons being used in violation of international humanitarian joel wasn't clear enough. and so that it couldn't order the u. k. government to stop it's weapons transfers. ringback i think the court's decision is also steps with the information that's available with international consensus. um, but i think uh this is this, the most of the, this is all straight case and the metal is what's on the ditch low. i mean there's a u, v, and legislation, but at this implemented in detroit. and so every country can use its own

legal system to, to, to respond to the situation. so i'm not sure if it's a national kind of rule. uh, i mean that to the, to this a different uh, kind of a system and less much less enforceable. but it's bad. there is, there is a tendency in new policies to always wants to have one come and stand up for these kind of things. so if we can convince other open countries that this is the stand up for on sex board, the audio can countries to confirm to this. okay, mistake and let me bring you in here on what the high court of justice in london will. because the criticism including from your own organization is that the licenses that the you k use is to transfer weapons to as well are incredibly opaque . i mean, how problematic is that then for, you know,

collecting information about what's being transferred and then holding people to account. sure, well the whole system is, is okay, can the united states has done this as well for the past few months. the invite and administration has fast tracked weapons to israel, and it has also use a threshold. so there is a threshold under which if the weapons are small enough, if the package is small enough, that the binding administration does not actually need to notify congress that these weapons are going and that of course, you know, it's legal, but it's an en round and run around democracy and speaking of things that are important but not legal. i think a lot of what we're talking about is the court of public opinion. and of course, many populations around the world are extraordinarily upset with the united states, and it really has a credibility problem. now, whether or not, you know, these, these legal questions fall in his favor. and mr. phillips who's at risk of

prosecution, you know, has spoken about us officials. but what about the companies that sell you know, themselves who a manufacturing, whether it's the weapons, ammunition technology, could companies accrued individuals within those companies be liable as well? it's not impossible, but like, you know, it would, you just look at the standard set, you know, states and united states accepted as reflecting the law for and for aiding and abetting. and again, you also just as the standard use of adopted in the $911.00 trial at the going talking about. but i think it's unlikely, at least in the near term. but again, these norms about accountability are growing. the us is trying to reinforce them and putting in connection with the russians more and ukraine. and so it's, it's within the role possibility that decades down the road, not just us officials involved the sole team, arms transfers, the enabled war crimes. but also, you know, personal or officials in companies may also face a potential legal exposure,

particularly abroad. and as paperless companies estates a found from the liable if and when this does come in and into a course of fuel. what kind of sentences, what kind of repercussions would we be looking at? so i think we're talking about a few different things here. one are sort of the state to state litigation that's taking place and for the international court adjusted estimate. and the, the challenge that south africa brought out of the genocide convention was a separate issue about the criminal prosecution of individuals. you know, the individuals not states being criminal not currently persecuted. you know, i think, i think it would depend on the jurisdiction that any charges were brought in. but young, judging from past domestic, you know, prosecution including, you know, under universal jurisdiction, you're looking at potentially decades in prison for serious law, for violations. okay. i mean, that's indeed very serious. if it does come in in front of the course. again,

miss debris is since you are in amsterdam and it's, it's way we've seen a successful case. what do you say to, you know, all of those when we talked about the course of public opinion, who would like countries like the us, the u. k. do you have any from so strategy a and canada to stop funding israel to take the advice of un experts who are calling for an embargo? what can they do? well, i think 30 day should. well, if you can try uh, as awesome, that is quite expensive, but you should also continue to, to, to have political actions to protest in front of all factories to protest in front of you, military ministry of, uh like a fast with a designing on the honest exports, i think, to, to continue political protests to continue to political pressure is actually the

right way to do it because it's of cause a sort of dramatic for democracy that we have to, to go to court, to the oscar governments, to people international humanitarian standards. i mean, come in to do that. so to political stations, you've decided to keep this kind of okay, we should certainly continue to demonstrate and think he felt the pressure celia i, we played some comments from the you foreign policy chief joseph. but i earlier who was saying that if the us is so concerned about the mounting desktop and gaza, that they should send mess with it. and so i found those comments really interesting because you and experts have said that, you know, as well as stopping, sending weapons. there was so many other things that, you know, policies to the convention on the prevention of genocide can do, you know, including sanctions. now joseph bought a can criticize the us sending this to as well. but do you think that the you can

also be doing much more in sectioning as well in other ways? so a think any state or a group of states that is worried about how israel is conducting this campaign and gaza. there are quite a lot of tools in their tool kit, one of which is, of course, sanctioning and does just as a president biden and put out an executive order a few months ago that allows him to sanction some of the violent westbank settlers, including is rarely officials who are inciting that violence and or giving weapons to those westbank settlers. so this is possible all the united states has it, and it's tool kit. i think a lot of other countries have it in their tool kit. the question is when they are going to use it and i think it's long past time, the stuff in there can do you agree that it's as long pause time? could we see a change in how much or how severely as well as sanctioned a lot. the outcome here that the us should change the approach to providing weapons

and military systems to israel is all determines over determine because of the u. s . law policy, international law, it's over determine through the obstruction of kind of restrictions upon humanitarian assistance, which is 0 referred to a moment ago. and over arching late. it's over determine because this war has been a catastrophe. 30000 people have been killed. the gaza is facing famine and this conflict is sparked or original war with us is now directly involved in that included with the who these, in human and the red sea. and so the us needs to stop being an arsonist and the situation and quit and drawing more fuel on the fire and try to extinguish it, including by using the leverage that it has with this role um and transfers are significant for of leverage. and let's say i get, we had some very interesting comments from the senate majority leader chuck schumer, a few days ago talking about the never should the us has with is with and how it

should be using more leverage. because of how it's conducting this war on gaza. now, many people thought that he could have been hinting at conditioning us military aid . what do you think of that? so for those in the audience who don't know um chuck schumer, this is a remarkable speech by a democrat who has been very close to israel, very close to the supporters of israel here in the united states. i think what it shows is a real shift in how congress, which has responsibility for oversight on arms transfers is thinking about this conflict. and so, yeah, he's, he does have the kind of influence that could put conditioning of weapons on the table to israel as a threat. but of course, president biden still has not been willing to do that. so he's really the one that needs to be convinced. okay, and mr. reyes, i want to ask you about something that's happening and answer them because even

though the dots court has full that the meta is comp be sending pots of f 355 digits to as well. i read that the government is trying to find other ways of doing this. so just, you know, why is it so important then for countries to keep supplying weapons to as well and, and, and how do you really make sure that it happens even if you have a quote for moving in hand. i think you kind of look at the, it's fairly assign conflicts in isolation. it's part of a broader international poster, tremendously power structure which is fairly so important. and also the certainly ops industry is important in the whole network of international last industry that for many countries in europe, of course, following the united states is, is a very important thing. and as long as the united states continues to support israel. uh, you can countries, many european countries will also continue to support issue with us. so i also

think when mr. bordeaux says we should stop bombing is for a. why do you opinion then? not saying, okay, we have an honest work on this front. well, i mean, they can do the adapted by what to do that. and i think you are past to really think about his own way and its own policies to follow a note to continue funding united states because i think we have our own you a funeral to play this winter to the various. thank you very much for that. thank you to all of i guess that is sarah yaga in washington dc, went into the reason as to them and bryan center can also in washington dc and thank you to for watching. you can see the program again any time by visiting our website, algio dot com, and prefer the discussion to go to our facebook page. that's facebook dot com, forward slash a inside story. you can also join the conversation on x. i handle this at a inside story from me, elizabeth put on him and the whole team here, bye for now the

a booth cold occupation resulting in a her wrist take your time. i'll just say it was investigated units interrogates the evidence and reveals voltage present it to the world to justify israel, the soap on garza, dozens of children bounds him up during them and executed them. this information has been used by officious books the to the 7 on tuesday or on the federal tax upfront takes on the big issue. that is a context to what is happening now. it is of complex 3 question. question about 5 upfront without 0 business like this, this brought to you believe, i guess is a line supply on one of your this makes model leads. the

business like just is free if you believe i guess is an ice fly on one of your just makes model inflates. the

. ready the, you're watching the news, our life from headquarters, and del 5 getting obligate to. here's what's coming up in the next 60 minutes. israel says it's killed 90 people and it's raised on and she felt hospital and detained. hundreds more more is really or strikes in the occupied westbank. 3 palestinians have been killed in geneva.