san jose to cities became connected to the interior in an award winning film, which is 0. well, his historians and i witness accounts that portray, early 20th century spanish style as a thriving fibers reach. it was multiple investments were excess, moving from one city to another, kind of styling 1920 on al jazeera as well as juan gaza has relied mostly on the western arms and technology to cut around 32000 listings and to find growing law position. those weapons keep flowing. so who's 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 the communities to rumble in the west. some of the worlds 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, in sense, as the world watches on it less than politicians, multiple in the us backing israel 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 housing? 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 gaza,

having 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 must plumbing to lead us on for a minute to or 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 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, who's accused israel of genocide at the international court of justice, but it could take years before any, but it just reached human rights. legal experts, bone that's sending weapons for the use and gaza is likely to violate international human though. so to talk to and in february, a quote in the netherlands, ordered the country to quote the export of s $3055.00 to ship parts to it. as well

. as for the 1949 geneva conventions, states a legally bound to prevent genocide, 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 bill, bullets and everything else at the same time. that's what he's got to do. stop sending the money in the weapons, as well as coming on the 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 the 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 adds to that when to the degree

is, is the co founder a stop whopping handle an independent dutch campaign, a post trade, and also in washington dc. is brian for new can. 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 to 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 us 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 of the us government if you are not going to analyze as well as conduct, because most definitive 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 grinds us law. us policy and international law require the united states to undertake assessments and monitor how us origin weapons are being used. respect any partner giving us transfer some to. but the administration has repeatedly said that they're not undertaking the assessments of 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 or meaningful. if assurance is the israel's providing with respect to law for provides 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 need to remedy for months. now, mr. newton, you've advised the u. s. government governments in the past on military, on legal issues, the ca go, i believe you have to pacific and why don't you think that the us government is doing the necessary assessments here as well. but the answers may be inconvenient to the policy director from the white house sleep. the prison, united states has not signaled that yet, but he is open to the conditioning aid or enforcing the conditions already built into young law with respect to arms transfers or us military assistance. so that's

an overarching reason. i will say just bureaucratically to the used car was not enough to do this work. and that means for a systematic fashion. it's frankly embarrassing that organizations like cerros, organizations 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 use weapons in the us government seems to be doing. yeah, yeah. i mean, you say 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 as well. at the moment and, 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. no, 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 long is he goes to court says the exports to israel, kind of go ahead to farms, 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 of conflicts must lead for all the other countries swell to the conclusion that the issue stops its export the rules that out for hughes to come to the conclusion are rules that are binding. well, oh, almost every state and the rule that she is national, humanitarian who is the honest truth treaty. it's 2 european calling position that says if there's a risk that us a use will be used in and human rights violations in the state of destiny,

you cannot export. and this is a binding rule that takes priority over any other interest. the have self defense, vitriol, b, it's regional security. be can only interest or deep 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 quote from link from group such as yourself as well. so we honestly that absolutely astonished that the, this court case was wrong because in 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 a grounds. because all of this looks nation like many other kinds of international legislation. also you can also explore to leave a little bit of political room for my not for. and this is of cause deliberate

because governments want to control and decide on their own. on 6 sport and not have it to restrict it. but i think the fact that that there's also uh, clear risk of, of uh, of genocide has certainly read 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 a human rights. a 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 russian and to know and 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 and the quote 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 to 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 legal according to us laws that govern support to israel. so it is real is blocking

humanitarian aid. the us government is supposed to cut off all support to israel. and i think the era drops that you've seen the united states do the building of a porch 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's rarely assurances of not violation, international or credible and un experts have go on 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 think, be prosecuted 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 those stands before in a court or a 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 8 or in a better of war crimes and uses invoke the standard in the prosecution of culture. mohamad for the $911.00 attacks done in guantanamo basis of the standards of the united states government itself is relying upon the question has been, how is the standard ever going to be enforced on? do 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 in the pick or your pin state? no, i don't think it's likely if i'm, but the trace of the 0 probably over the long term because people have long memories and it comes to a trustee. crimes on the use itself isn't engaged in trying to build up normally into account ability. so it's to me it's, it's not impossible to save that decades. the road us officials may have probable if they want to travel to europe show up. but you think it's not likely 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 standard and you know, the bedding is, is somewhat higher at the, the end of the criminal court than it is under customer natural law. and the lot the us is trying to apply it at guantanamo bay. so it really will to,

depending on the last individual states as well for the will as you indicate. okay, and that's the very is let me bring you in here because mr. newton was talking about, you know, different standards and different quotes. and this has been in court, and this is where i was 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 its weapons transfers to think the court's decision is also steps with the information that's available with international consensus. um, but i think uh this, this almost all the, this all started 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 it's just a, that's a different uh, kind of a system and less much less enforceable. but it's that 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 the, this is the stand up for on sex board, the audio and countries, the consent 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 its favor. and most of them can, who's at risk of prosecution, you know, has spoken about us officials. but what about the companies that celts, you know, themselves who a manufacturing, whether it's the weapons, ammunition technology, could companies or could 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 up to the united states, to accept it as reflecting the law for, and for aiding and abetting. and again, you also just as the standards used to the doctor did the 911 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 in 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 into a course of your, 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 that 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, there's no, as we've seen a successful case. what do you say to, you know, all of those when we talk about the court of public opinion, who would like countries like the u. s. the u. k. gemini 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? i think so they should, but like you can try other than that, this 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 mean to tell the ministry of if i can knock a fast with

a designing audience exports i think, to, to continue political protest have continued to political pressure is actually the right way to do it because it's, it's, of course, a sort of dramatic for democracy that we have to, to go to cards to the oscar governments to people international humanitarian standards. i mean comments, you do that. so to political stations, you've decided to keep this kind of okay, we should certainly continue to demonstrate and thinking about the pressure miss celia i, we played some comments from the e. u foreign policy chief joseph, but i earlier who was saying that if the us is so concerned about the mountain dest told 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, but

a can criticize the us sending this to as well. but do you think that the you can also be doing much more in centurylink as well, in other ways? a so a think any state or a group of states that is worried about how israel is conducting this campaign in 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 its 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 israel is sanctioned. a look the outcome here that the us should change the approach to providing weapons and military systems to israel is own, 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 but we're working 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 and human and the red sea. and so the us needs to stop being an arsonist in the situation and quit and drawing more fuel on the fire and try to extinguish the things, including by using the leverage that it has with this role and transfers their significant form of leverage. and let's see, i get,

we have 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 mystery is, 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 from going in hand? i think you kind of look at the, it's fairly assigned conflicts in isolation. it's part of a broader international poster from industry poster which is surely is very important. and also the certainly option industry is important in the whole net book or 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

a sale uh in countries, many european countries will also continue to support a show, but also, so i also think when mr. brown says we should stop bombing israel. why do you opinion then? not saying okay, we have an offshore cut on this right. well, i mean, they can do the adapted by what to do to and i think you a pass to really think about his own way and its own policies to follow and not to continue for him. 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 a sarah yaga in washington dc went into the reason as to them and bryan center can also in washington dc. and thank you too for watching. you can see the program again any time by visiting our website, algio dot com, and prefer the discussion to go to a facebook page that facebook dot com forward slash a inside story. you can also join the conversation on x. i handle this at

a inside story for me, elizabeth put on him and the whole team here. bye for now. the examining the headlines. is there any is of publicity for forms of life and unflinching journalism? awesome. every interview, just like the war sharing personal stories with a globe or, or do you want to create a world where women come and feel natur released that trauma and creates explore, and abundance of world class programming on eligibility era. a unique perspective that is done is one of the most of the 3 just example of abuses of human rights and environmental injustices on heard voices, luxury to young people. i know for russia,

they're like any other people from any other country. we want to really connect with our community and tap into conversations you will find elsewhere. we have to be able to educate ourselves, to be able to identify what is freedom and what is it not to stream on out to 0. why have american evangelicals become his real strongest factor? is us president joe finding the right to stand with this really with no red line? as long as us support continues? is there anything that can stop is real, solve on concept, from going on in? definitely a quizzical look at us politics. the bottom line expo 2023. the world, the fascination to

join us and let's discover a better world expo 2023. the until mccrae and our holidays at the top stores on al jazeera, the united states has submitted a draft resolution to the un security council. the recognizes the need for an immediate cease fire and cancer. secretary of site ends and the blinking is incorrect. the tools and says the resolution is linked to the release of captives held by mouse. lincoln's been continuing his diplomatic efforts with a series of meetings across them. at least the us has previously vetoed attempts that the security council to achieve a safe spot, a diplomatic it is a james by his explains. this was examining the exact language and this quite linked the resolution. and the key paragraph is this one out for 2 paragraph.