01/26/24 01/26/24 [captioning made possible by democracy now!] amy: from new york, this is democracy now! >> the court, south africa has standing to submit to a dispute with israel concerning alleged violations of obligations under the genocide convention. amy: in a landmark ruling, the international court of justice finds a possible risk that

israel is committing genocide in gaza and orders provisional measures but stopped short of calling for an immediate cease-fire. we will play excerpts and get response. then to the uncle of a palestinian-american teenager who was just shot dead in the west bank last week. his family is calling for a transparent investigation. all that and more, coming up. welcome to democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. the international court of justice has ordered israel to take all measures within its power to prevent an aside in gaza. the highly anticipated ruling of the world court got underway shortly before we went on air. this is joan donoghue. >> the court considers the plausible rights in question in

this proceeding, namely the right of palestinians in the gaza strip to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts identified in article three of the genocide convention and the right of south africa to seek israel's compliance with the latter's obligation under the convention, are of such a nature that prejudice to them is capable of causing irreparable harm. amy: the icj started by ruling it has jurisdiction over the case rocked by south africa and dismissed israel's bid to throw it out. the court did not order an immediate cease-fire. the interim verdict is a major blow to israel and the united states, which have undermined the case despite overwhelming evidence presented by south africa. the court will not rule today on whether israel has committed genocide. that verdict could take years. we will have more on the historic ruling after headlines.

meanwhile, israel's unrelenting assault on gaza continues as the death toll tops 26,000, with at least another 65,000 injured. at least 11,000 of those killed our children. khan younis remains under intense attack with israeli shelling and snipers reportedly targeting the nasser and al-amal hospitals. hundreds of families have fled the area in recent days. israeli forces surrounded the southern city. world health organization chief tedros adhanom ghebreyesus, who struggled to speak after becoming emotional, appealed for an immediate ceasefire. >> 70% of the dead are children and women. that alone is enough for a cease-fire. because the bulk of the

casualty, where it is, so i think this thing has to be taken seriously. and going forward, by the way, the number of deaths will increase not only due to injuries but chronically ill people, for instance. amy: meanwhile, cia director william burns will reportedly travel to france this weekend for a fourth round of talks aimed at reaching a halt in the fighting and a release of the remaining hostages in gaza. the talks involve officials from the united states, israel, qatar, and egypt. this comes as tensions are mounting between israel and qatar after leaked audio surfaced of israeli prime minister netanyahu calling doha -- calling qatar problematic as he met with family members of hostages. doha slammed the remarks as "obstructing and undermining the

mediation process." two more u.s. cities on thursday passed resolutions for a ceasefire in gaza. minneapolis's resolution, approved in a 9-3 vote, also called for an end to u.s. military funding for israel. meanwhile, somerville became the first massachusetts city to pass a ceasefire resolution after months of constituent organizing. cambridge, which is home to harvard, is expected to pass their own ceasefire resolution on monday. the united states and iraq will start talks on phasing out the u.s.-led military coalition in iraq. the u.s. has more than 2500 troops in iraq, that initially returned to iraq in 2014 to combat islamic state fighters. u.s. bases have since come under attack by iran-affiliated groups, which have increased in light of the u.s. backing

of israel's assault on gaza. in alabama, prison officials ended the life of 58-year-old kenneth smith via nitrogen gas asphyxiation in the nation's first-of-its-kind execution. in his final statement, smith said -- "tonight alabama causes humanity to take a step backwards. i'm leaving with love, peace and light." the case has garnered international condemnation. kenneth smith's spiritual adviser jeff hood witnessed the execution and rebuked alabama's attorney general, who had predicted smith would lose consciousness within seconds and die within minutes. this is jeff hood. >> what we saw was minutes of someone struggling for their life. we saw minutes of someone heaving back-and-forth. we saw spit, we saw all sorts of stuff from his mouth develop.

we saw him ripping his head forward over and over and over again. and we also saw correction officials in the room who were visibly surprised at how bad this thing went. amy: a federal judge sentenced former trump adviser peter navarro to four months in prison thursday for contempt of congress after he defied a subpoena from the house select committee investigating the january 6 insurrection. judge amit mehta told navarro that citing executive privilege is not a "magical incantation" or "get out of jail free card." in other trump news, closing arguments are being delivered today in his second defamation trial brought by writer e. jean carroll. this trial will determine whether trump owes carroll more damages on top of the $5 million a jury awarded her last year

after finding trump sexually abused her in the 1990's and later defamed her. a new study has found tens of thousands of pregnancies have resulted from rape in states where abortion was banned following the overturning of roe v wade in 2022. over the past 18 months, researchers estimate there were nearly 65,000 pregnancies from sexual assaults with most, if not all, survivors, including girls, forced to carry them to term. texas topped the list with 45% of the rape-related pregnancies. in michigan, a first-of-its-kind manslaughter trial is underway for jennifer crumbley, the mother of the oxford high school shooter. ethan crumbley was just 15 years old when he opened fire on the school in 2021, killing four students and injuring six other people. his father james crumbley is being tried separately later

this year. this is prosecutor marc keast delivering his opening statement. >> the evidence will prove by the time this gun was bought, the school shooter was in a downward spiral that have begun months before. the evidence will also show you that jennifer crumbley was aware of that. despite her knowledge of his deteriorating mental crisis, despite her knowledge of his growing social -- despite the fact it is illegal for a 15-year-old to walk into a gun store and walk out with the gun by himself -- amy: france's top court ruled that large parts of a new, highly contested immigration bill were unconstitutional. the court threw out nearly half of the 80 measures in the legislation, including restrictions on access to welfare benefits for non-citizens and the denial of citizenship for children born in france.

immigrant rights activists and their allies took to the streets to welcome the move and vowed to keep fighting. >> we're asking to be equal with others. we are simple. it is simple what we are asking for. we want residency. we want to live with dignity in this country. the french are leaving and going to our country. we want freedom. that's it. freedom, equality, fraternity. amy: in australia, thousands of people rallied in indigenous-led protests on so-called australia day, marking the arrival of european colonizers in 1788. january 26 has been dubbed "invasion day" by aboriginal communities and allies who are pushing to do away with the national holiday. this is aboriginal elder adrian burragubba. >> we're here to tell people --

we still operate under our law and the law is in the land. amy: and here in new york, a memorial service for national security adviser and secretary of state henry kissinger was met with protests thursday. activists chanted "burn, henry, burn" as they remembered the 4 million people kissinger's actions have killed across the globe. >> we mourn those in cambodia and vietnam and laos and bangladesh and chile in argentina and palestine and angola. as we mourn the dead, we offer those who fight to live. amy: activists held up signs that said "henry kissinger: war criminal."

and those are some of the headlines. this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. in a landmark ruling today, the international court of justice found plausible risk that israel is committing genocide in gaza and ordered provisional measures but stopped short of calling for an immediate cease-fire. the ruling was read out by the president of the court joan donoghue. she began with the finding that south africa had jurisdiction to bring the case against israel. >> in the courts's view, at least some of the acts and omissions alleged by south africa to have been committed by israel in gaza appeared to be capable of falling within the provisions of the convention. in light of the following, the court concludes prima facie it has jurisdiction pursuant to article nine of the convention to entertain the case. amy: south africa had asked the court as a matter of extreme urgency to impose emergency measures to protect palestinians

in gaza. the president of the court went on to read out the findings regarding south africa's request for provisional measures. >> in the court's view, the facts and circumstances are sufficient to conclude at least some of the rights claimed by south africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible. this is the case with respect to the right of palestinians in gaza to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts identified in article three and the right of south africa to seek israel's compliance with the latter's obligations under the convention. the court entrance to the link between the plausible rights claimed by south africa and a provisional measures requested. it considers that by their very nature, at least some of the measures sought by south africa are aimed at preserving the plausible rights it asserts on

the basis of the genocide convention in the present case, namely, the right of the palestinians in gaza to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts ancient on no -- in article three and the right of africa to seek his was complex with the letters obligations under the convention. therefore, a link exists between the rights claimed by south africa the court has found to be plausible in at least some of the provisional measures requested. amy: the president of the court joan donoghue cited the killing of palestinians in gaza, mass displacement, deprivation of aid , and other charges brought by south africa and went on to say the court found a plausible risk that israel is committing genocide in gaza. >> the court considers there is urgency in the since there is a real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused to the rights found by the court to be plausible before it gives its final decision.

the court concludes on the basis of the aforementioned consideration that the conditions required by statute for it to indicate provisional measures are met. it is therefore necessary pending a final decision for the court to indicate certain measures in order to protect the rights claimed by south africa that the court has found to be plausible. amy: for more, we're joined by three guests. we are going to begin in haifa with diana buttu, palestinian human rights attorney and former adviser to the negotiating team of the palestine liberation organization. in 2004, diana buttu was part of the legal team that won the 2004 case before the international court of justice which ruled israel's separation wall in the west bank is illegal under international law. diana buttu, welcome back to democracy now! if you can respond to the court's ruling that was released

just moments before we went to air. >> it is an amazing ruling because it highlights everything that the south african team, and palestinians have been saying the entire time, which is that israel is plausibly carrying out genocide. the fact the court has indicated to israel they have to take measures to prevent genocide, to make soldiers are doing the same, to prosecute those individuals who are inciting, including high government officials, and ensure there is effective humanitarian aid, is precisely what was sought by palestinians. it is up to the world to make sure this court ruling is enacted. amy: but they did not call for an immediate cease-fire as south africa asked. the significance of this? >> i think it is very difficult at this stage for the court to be pushing for a cease-fire. but the fact they said first and

foremost that israel has to take all measures to prevent acts of genocide is enough for the world to then be pushing for a cease-fire. it is really up to the international system as we know eight to make sure genocide is not carried out. so it is imperative this be followed up by countries around the world making sure israel does not get to do whatever it wants to do with palestinians in gaza and continue this genocide. amy: can you talk about the woman who we heard delivering the pronouncement of the court, joan donoghue, former state department official -- though she is not representing the united states in this, she represents the court. she was in the state department under president obama. >> and she is one of the judges, one of 17 judges on the bench. two are ad hoc.

15 permit judges who ruled in favor of all of the measures that have been sought. her term expires on february 6. so she won't be with the court after that. it is very important this decision not just be a split court. you can tell by the breath of it of the 17 judges, that on most of the issues, it was 15 versus 2, 1 being the ugandan judge and the second being the israeli judge. in some cases, 16 the one with the one, ironically, the uganda judge. amy: why the ugandan judge? >> it is not entirely clear why. it is clear why the israeli judge but what is more important is the fact that we see this court has overwhelmingly decided in favor of south africa, overwhelmingly determined there is plausible risk of genocide. it becomes paired of upon the world community to act. -- imperative upon the world

community cap. the fact it is taken so long for the world to realize this is genocide and had to go to court says something about the international legal system as we know it, which is that it is broken. i'm hoping based on this world will act and rather than hiding behind all of these false claims that israel has repeated for the past 112 days. amy: i want to bring raz segal into the discussion, associate professor of holocaust and genocide studies at stockton university and the endowed professor in the study of modern genocide. co-authored a recent piece for al jazeera headlined "intent in the genocide case against israel is not hard to prove." he is joining us from philadelphia. professor, welcome back to democracy now! your response to this ruling? >> good morning. i think this is an unprecedented ruling. it signals first and foremost the end of israeli -- which is

huge. space amounting evidence of best violence come occupation, this is the end of that era. it is just beginning of the process. with the ruling that basically recognizes the possibility of genocide, the fact that israel is likely committing genocidal acts, the beginning of a process of isolating israel because university, company, state now will have to consider moving forward whether he continues or doesn't continue in many cases to engage with israel because it is likely committing genocide. it is also legally triggering third states responsibilities on issues of prevention and complicity with genocide.

and significantly important today or in a few hours in a court in florida there will be the hearing in the case the center for constitutional rights has brought against biden, blinken, and austin in u.s. complicity with genocide and the failure to present -- prevent genocide. this might have a certain effect even on this case moving forward. this is really unprecedented. yes, it is a disappointment the court did not order an immediate cease-fire. but it did order israel to cease from any genocidal acts, which de facto is in order for a cease-fire. amy: what about getting aid into gaza? >> the court also issued an order on the urgent need and stressed the unprecedented scale

of destruction and killing, the dire situation in gaza in terms of what we know the level of hunger and spread of infectious disease. so it also ordered this, which again is very, very important. now wait and see what israel's response to this will be. amy: i also want to bring in to this discussion mahmood mamdani, professor of government at columbia university who specializes in the study of colonialism. one of his many books is "neither settler nor native: the making and unmaking of permanent minorities." he was previously a professor and director of the centre for african studies at the university of cape town in south africa. has been an academic leader in uganda for years. professor, your response to this ruling? we discussed yesterday before

the ruling what you expected. what did you see today? >> thank you for being mean -- thank you for bringing me in. everything i expected happened. i wasn't sure they would call for a cease-fire. but now listening to the reason of the court, it is clear to me that could not have called directly for a cease-fire without preempting future deliberations. at the same time if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, that it is a doubt. -- then it is a duck. how do you stop killing people? cease-fire.

how do you ensure supplies for human life get in? cease-fire. and so on and so forth. i think the ball is now in the political domain. the law cannot displace politics. he could open avenues for politics. that is where we are now. this ruling is enormously significant in terms of broadening the avenues for politics. in terms of strengthening and accelerating the trend towards a global alliance against settler colonialism, it has the u.s. on the defensive, israel on the defensive. we know the last time the court ruled against israel, which was

on the question of the war, israel ignored it. but this time i think it may not be so easy to do. first of all, one has to ask was tough, why did israel before the court it could have just ignored it, according to its past conduct. that is what it would've done. so the fact it came before the court says there are conflicting pressures before the israeli government. now what does it do? i think this is one goal in favor of the world and we continue with the game. amy: and your insight into the ugandan judge of the international court of justice? sometimes the vote was 15-2 as diana buttu said, the ugandan judge and the israeli judge.

and sometimes it was 16-1. >> well, ugandan judge had a career where she had opposed the resume on several legal issues in court. she was appointed by the regime on the international stage, thus removing her from the local stage. i haven't followed her career since then, but she was pretty consistent. there seemed to be no indication that she was making up her mind from the issue. i can't say anything more than that right now. amy: we're going to go to break and then come back to our guest. we're speaking with kalama university professor mahmood mamdani in new york, with raz

segal, the israeli historian and professor of holocaust and genocide studies at stockton university, and in haifa, diana buttu, palestinian human rights attorney. we will also hear more from the international court of justice, the u.n.'s highest court. stay with us. ♪ [music break]

amy: this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. the international court of justice, the u.n.'s highest court come has been a plausible risk israel is committing genocide in gaza and ordered provisional measures but stopped

short of calling for an immediate ceasefire. this is the president of the court joan donoghue reading out the vote -- part of the ruling. >> by 15 votes to two, the state of israel shall in accordance with its obligations on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide in relation to the palestinians in gaza, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of article two of the convention, in particular, a, killing members as a group, b, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, c, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life cap related to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, and d, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group. amy: over a one-hour ruling, the international court of justice president joan donoghue in the hague quoted israel's defense

minister gallant saying as the war got underway, carlotta has said we have removed all restraints -- gallant had said we will remove all restraints, referring to palestinians as on most. she went on to say he compared them to the islamic state. after proceedings concluded today, the south african government said it welcomed the icj's decision. we're continuing with our guest's right now. diana buttu, palestinian human rights attorney in haifa, israel. raz segal, israeli historian and professor at stockton university. and mahmood mamdani, professor of government at colombia university, specializing in the study of colonialism. diana buttu, if you can talk about what exactly the timetable is right now and the true level

of enforcement that the icj or even the united nations overall has. go back to using as a reference your involvement with the 2004 decision where the icj ruled the separation wall that israel built in the occupied territories, illegal. >> let's first start of this particular case. i think it is important to keep in mind just last week prime minister netanyahu said nothing is going to stop him, not the icj, not the hague, nobody is going to stop him and he is going to continue to pursue most the reason he is doing this is in part because he is genocidal and in large part because he knows that the minute the attacks on gaza are over, that is term in office also is over because of the internal dissent by israel. the reason this is important is

because we have not heard yet what israel has said but judging by that, it means they're going to ignore this ruling. and if they ignore the ruling, it then becomes imperative upon the member states to take this decision to the u.n. security council to have the ruling enforced at this early counsel level -- security council level. it becomes a russian whether the u.s. is going to veto or abstain or what exactly it is going to do. i can take in terms of 2004, 2004 was a very different case. it was advisory opinion. it was not a case of the same type. in 2004, israel took the same position, that it wasn't going to stop the construction of the wall and in fact accelerated. it part of the decision indicated there are other states , third states, other countries, that are also obliged to make

sure israel upholds international law. and that was the part where the world failed. and out of that, this is where we saw the bds movement ended up being re-created or reconstituted on the one-year anniversary of the icj ruling. so in 2005. the reason it came together was because they expected -- we expected the world was going to come forward and do something to make sure the advisory opinion was upheld and enforced. instead, they did nothing. once again we're going to see the likelihood israel is going to ignore the ruling and then it is imperative to take it to the u.n. security council. all the while, it is important we continue to boycott israel, divest from israel, and push for sanctions. the global bds movement should be growing at this point to make sure the age of israeli impunity finally comes to an end.

amy: raz segal, if you can talk about the aspects of genocide. you write, the crime of genocide is two elements -- intention and execution. and what joan donoghue, the head of the court -- at least for another few weeks -- read in terms of the decision for what constitutes genocide? and what this means as an israeli historian who lives in the united states while israel tried to say this does not matter? the fact is, they participated in this, clearly showing it matters a great deal to them. and also, what it means for the united states support for israel and what is happening today with this court finding? >> so i think it was very important that the court quoted

some of the statements of intent. it is important to emphasize we're talking about dozens of statements of intent to destroy palestinians, to show a language of the u.n. convention and by people called -- state leaders, were cabinet leaders, officers. these statements were made over time, so not just a week or two after october 7 hamas-let attack until today what we think about what prime minister netanyahu said january 13 that the attacks will continue. he also reiterated the portrayal of palestinians as nazis, for example. which is basically humanization, betrays all

palestinians in gaza as legitimate military targets. these statements of intent over time by people with command authority filled with humanizing language, animals, monsters come historically are indicators of genocide. i think it was significant the court mentioned or quoted some of these statements to emphasize it is not as israel tried to argue, that it is not something we can disregard. it is key elements of the crime of genocide and we should pay attention to this. but it also emphasized a number of times, actually, the unprecedented scale of killing and destruction on the ground, catastrophic situation that palestinians are facing now. and in this context, i think it is very important to say the

court basically accepted south africa's argument that israel's "evacuation orders" are not as israel claimed, but genocidal. that means they are meant to displace millions of people, almost 2 million palestinians, virtually almost all of the palestinians in the gaza strip under intensive bombings. we also know israel bombed people on routes a designated as safe come in the southern part of the strip early on which it designated as safe. and under the conditions of the total siege where we today, this measure did what it was intended , created famine, created the spread of infectious disease, created population that has no access to water, fuel, medical

supplies. it destroyed all of the universities in gaza. he destroyed a majority of the hospitals. the destroyed cultural land and targeted cultural sites. so everything we know historically that happens in genocide. with this massive displacement that -- we know even if israel's tax stops now, many palestinians will continue to die in these conditions. the israel overtly -- deliberately created to bring about destruction in whole or in part. i thought it was important the ruling emphasize the issues of intent and the dynamics of violence and the conditions that we see now on the ground. this is very significant. the court is saying if there is possibility, that israel has committed and is committing acts of genocide.

amy: and what this means for the united states, professor? >> well, i mean -- amy: and the head of the court is an american. >> i think it is difficult to say. i am curious to see how the u.s. state will respond. i'm very curious to see, as i said, as i said come in the next few hours beginning at noon today eastern time, a case in california, right? the judge there has the icj ruling so the judge knows the court has ruled that israel is likely committing genocide most i think there will be growing pressure also on the u.s. in this sense. it is difficult to say what the u.s. will do but we do know in

europe, there are more more states -- not germany, but more and more states have already said and will in various ways abide by the court ruling, which may be a significant in terms of arms deals, refusing to transfer arms to israel through europe and various other measures, you know, as i said before. any company, any university, any state around the world knows israel is likely committing genocide. the isolation of israel, i hope we will also see more more calls -- academic boycotts in the u.s.. while u.s. state will definitely try to ignore the ruling -- and we already see the headlines in "the new york times" right now people who are following, which

frames this as the court did not issue an order of a ceasefire. which in effect, it did. as the professor said, if it ordered that israel should cease genocidal acts, that it should facilitate the entry of humanitarian aid, it actually said to have a ceasefire. otherwise, there's no way of doing that, right? i think the judge will try to ignore this as much as possible, but i think the pressure -- we are just the beginning of the pressure building up on this issue. so i think we might see some significant rules on this front as well. amy: the court case you're referring to in oakland today, which will be fueled by the international court of justice response from the hague, the center for constitutional rights brought the lawsuit against president biden, accusing him of

failing to follow with his obligations under international and u.s. law to prevent the genocide in gaza. the complaint brought on behalf of palestinians, including residents of gaza, who are asking a federal court -- asking a federal court to, let's see if i can read this, a federal court to intervene come to block biden , antony blinken, and lloyd austin from providing further military funding, arms, and diplomatic support to israel. catherine gallagher, senior attorney for the center of constitutional rights and one of the lawyers who brought the case said in a statement, the united states has a clear and binding obligation to prevent not for the genocide. so far they have failed in their legal and moral duty and considerable power to end this horror. they must do so. that is the court case happening in a few hours in oakland.

i also wanted to read the response of prime minister benjamin netanyahu from an article in haaretz, the israeli newspaper. he said the decision by the icj, "rightly rejected the outrageous demand to deny israel the right to basic self-defense to which is entitled as a country. the very claim that israel is committing genocide against palestinians is not just false, it is outrageous and the courts willingness to discuss it at all is a mark of disgrace that will not be erased for generations." i what to go back to professor mahmood mamdani. but first, play more of the court decision as read out by the chief judge of the international court of justice joan donoghue. >> during the ongoing conflict, senior united nations officials have repeatedly called attention

to the risk of further deterioration of conditions in the gaza strip. the court takes note of the letter dated six december 20 23 whereby the secretary-general of the united nations brought the following information to the attention of the security council, "the health care system in gaza is collapsing. nowhere is safe in gaza. amid constant bombardment by the is will defense forces and without shelter or the essentials to survive, i expect public order to completely break down soon due to the desperate conditions rendering even limited humanitarian assistance possible. and even worse situation could unfold including epidemic diseases and increased pressure for mass displacement to neighboring countries." we are facing a severe risk of collapse of the humanitarian system. the situation is fast deteriorating into a catastrophe

with potentially reversible implications for palestinians as a whole and for peace and security in the region. such an outcome must be avoided at all cost." on 5 january, 2024, the secretary-general wrote a get to the security council providing an update on the situation in the gaza strip and observing that, "sadly, devastating levels of death and destruction continue." the court also takes note of the 17 january, 2024 statement issued by the un-commissioned general upon his return from the gaza strip since the beginning of the current conflict, "every time i visit gaza, i would is how people have sunk further into despair with the struggle for survival consuming every hour." the court considers the civilian

population in the gaza strip remains extremely vulnerable. it recalls the military operation conducted by israel after 7 october 2023 has resulted in intends of thousands of deaths and injuries and the destruction of homes, schools, medical facilities and other vital infrastructure as well as displacement on a massive scale. the court was the operation is ongoing and that the prime minister israel announced 18 january, 2024, the war "will take many more long months." at present, many palestinians in the gaza strip have no access to the most basic foodstuffs, potable water, electricity, essential medicines, or heating. the world health organization has estimated that 15% of the women giving birth in gaza strip are likely to experience complications and indicates that

maternal and newborn death rates are expected to increase due to the lack of access to medical care. in these circumstances, the court considers the catastrophic humanitarian situation in the gaza strip is at serious risk of deteriorating further before the court renders its final judgment. the court recalls israel's statement that it has taken certain steps to address and alleviate the conditions faced by the population in the gaza strip. the court further notes the attorney general of israel recently stated that a call for intentional harm to civilians may amount to a criminal offense , including that of incitement, and several such cases are being examined by israeli law enforcement authorities. while such steps are to be encouraged, there insufficient to remove the risk that irreparable prejudice will be

caused before the court issues its final decision in the case. amy: joan donoghue is the chief judge of the international court of justice. the u.n.'s highest court. reading out the decision of the icj at the hague. when we come back, we will continue our discussion with mahmood mamdani, diana buttu, and raz segal. stay with us. ♪ [music break]

amy: this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. as we get response to the international court of justice handing down its decision today

at the hague, we want to go right now to the state department. the questioning of matt miller, state department spokesperson, by the associated press reporter matt lee. this took place last week about israel's demolition of the university in gaza. >> it looks like they control demolition. it looks like what we do here in this country when we are taking an old hotel or stadium and you have nothing to say? to do that kind of an explosion, you need to be in there. you have to put the explosives down and it takes a lot of planning and preparation to do. and if there was a threat from this particular facility, they would not have been able to do it. >> i have seen the video. i can tell you it is something

we are raising with the governor of israel as we often do. to ask questions and find it what the underlying situation is as we often do when we see reports of this nature. i am not able to characterize the actual facts on the ground before hearing that response. >> you saw it. >> i did see the video. >> being imploded. >> i don't know what was under that building or inside. >> it doesn't matter what was under the building because they obviously got in there to put the explosives down. to do it the way they did. >> again, i'm glad you have factual certainty but i just don't. >> all have is what i saw on the video, right? >> we did see it. >> and -- >> we are always troubled by any degradation of civilian infrastructure in gaza. amy: that is state department

spokesperson max miller being questioned by the ap reporter matt lee. we are continuing our discussion and talking about facts on the ground in gaza. we will start with professor mahmood mamdani, professor of government at columbia university, the school of international and public affairs , specializing in the study of colonialism. you are a professor. if you can talk about the response of professors here to the destruction of universities, cultural spaces in gaza, and the significance of this? and where you think this preliminary ruling of the icj, how you think it will affect what is being described today? >> well, i think the more facts come to light, the more israel's actions in gaza look like a textbook case of genocide.

this calculated destruction of a people's intellectual resources and intellectual legacy is not something which just has a short-term impact or is based on short-term consideration. it is aimed at a long-term resolution. [applause] [no audio] [no audio] [no audio] already there is considerable concern stop for the last few days i've seen imo's going around with the photographs of was the ap reporter called controlled demolition, premeditated demolition. people are asking columbia university to take action, to declare where they stand. and this will go on. one thing i am struck by is sort

of evidence mounts is that the court ruling relied on two sources of information. one was u.n. commissions. and the second was statements by israeli leaders. nothing else. and in doing so, it followed almost strictly the south african application. because the south african application also drew its facts, not from other sources, but from u.n. commissions. and now we have a situation where the court has asked israel to report back in a month and tell the court what it has done to comply with its decision. and given south africa the right

to comment on this report back by israel. this is going to be another round of not just pr because this is going to be a control process. so i think we're onto good territory. we're onto a territory which will bring more and more facts to light. and therefore we are on to a territory which will permit increased political mobilization based on these facts, especially in the u.s. and israel because these are the two countries where there has been minimal information in the mass media on what has been going on in gaza. now, this will become open territory. amy: i want to bring in diana buttu again as we begin to wrap up the show.

yesterday, ryan grim and the intercept wrote, "i was at the state department briefing today and asked if the u.s. would pledge not to veto the international court of justice's luminary ruling on the genocide charges against israel." if you can respond to what that means, what this process is? and again, what is happening on the ground now with israel dropping more leaflets in what was a safe space, khan younis, and this parade of humanity and misery of hundreds if not thousands going south from khan younis? >> amy, the response was a typical american administration. the reason i think it is so important for us to continue to press ahead is because what israel had in mind is to think since the beginning of this attack on gaza. first, it has made it clear it

was to make gaza smaller in size and they made it clear they want to "thin out" the population. that is why from the beginning it was clear to anybody who is paying attention that israel was going to begin in the north but then suddenly, magically moved to the south as everybody had looked the other way. this is precisely what has happened. now what israel is doing is not only dropping leaflets in khan younis, there's not a single place that is safe in gaza from day one. the intention is clear. if you want to get medical treatment, even now or a day after the bombing ends, you will have to seek it elsewhere. if you what education, you will have to go elsewhere. if you want to have a home, normal life, you will go elsewhere. it is this combination of genocide and ethnic cleansing that israel has been pushing

forward from day one. the problem is the united states has been not only an enabler for israel, but blocking any other efforts to try to stop this process of genocide and ethnic cleansing. amy: and the issue of this court decision going to the u.n. security council it violated? >> under the rules of the international court of justice, states must apply -- they are obliged to uphold the rules of the icj's decision. if they do not, they can go to the u.n. security council. i suspect we will be seeing this at the security council. the real question is whether the u.s. will use that veto or abstain. amy: we want to thank you all for being with us today. diana buttu, palestinian him and rights attorney, former adviser to the negotiating team of the palestine liberation organization. in 2004, she was part of the

legal team that won the 2004 case before the international court of justice which ruled israel's separation wall in the west bank is illegal under international law. speaking to us from haifa, israel. raz segal associate professor of , holocaust and genocide studies at stockton university and the