hello. i'm tadhg enright. you are welcome bbc

neither israel nor the us is a member of the icc let's speak to our correspondent peter bowes, what impact will these sanctions have? inaudible. are initially targeted at who work for the individuals who work for the icc and could be the icc and they could be the freezing of those z— 77 it could ' " fitic’ould'bierm individuals, it could be visa denying in restrictions, denying access in of travel to united terms of travel to the united states. that could affect states. and that could affect work of the broader the work of the broader organisation moving forward. it might an impact on might have an impact on financial institutions wanting to do the to do business with the icc, fearing consequences in fearing the consequences in to the united

relatientstheunited states. there could be some and there could be some diplomatic in terms of diplomatic issues in terms df countries that diplomatic issues in terms of countries that do support those countries that do support the icc and work their the icc and its work and their relationship with the united so, it could be states. so, it could be something of a web in —:= terms of potential implications. it does of course all come down to, it all come down to, initially it to be these wa rra nts warrants and you just arrest warrants and you just mentioned benjamin arrest warrant for arrest warrant tar and the arrest warrant for him and his defence minister at end last which in the end of last year, which in the end of last year, which in the last few prompted the the last few hours prompted the white talk about that the first tims'in'this the last few hours prompted the white house, talk about that white house, talk about that situation those arrest situation where those arrest we re warrants were issued on the e same day as an arrest warrant day an arrest warrant same day as an arrest warrant for a commander of hamas, the a commander of hamas, the for a commander of hamas, the white house said it implied a white house said it implied a shameful moral equivalency shameful moral equivalency between hamas. and between israel and hamas. and thatis is the paint donald that is the point that donald trump wants to make with this, between israel and hamas. and that is the point that donald trump wants to make with this, agesfiscc c... a- a, a, c 7hebroadly 7 7 7hebroadly £8 7 7 77h7e77b7r7'7oa7dl7y 3758 7571535197 7 that he broadly and strongly that he broadly and strongly disagrees with the way in which disagrees with the way in which that he broadly and strongly disagrees is ith the way in which that he broadly and strongly the court is operating. it’s disagrees is operating. in which that he broadly and strongly the court is operating. it's disagrees is operating. it’s vhich the court is operating. it's - remembering, - the court is operating. it's remembering, peter, as worth remembering, peter, as well that this is not the first worth remembering, peter, as well that this is not the first that 7th7at7do7na7ld777 7 77 7 77 that donald trump has time that donald trump has time that donald trump has , to sanction sought to sanction the

tiroe that donald tromo has , to sanction the sooght to sanction thar— ~ ~ ,, criminal court, international criminal court, international criminal court, first time in this the first time in this presidency, but he did so in his last. , ., , ., , his last. yes, it was a very similar— his last. yes, it was a very similar situation, - his last. yes, it was a very similar situation, it - his last. yes, it was a very similar situation, it was i his last. yes, it was a very i similar situation, it was 2020 during his first presidency. he then also brought in sanctions against the court. this was to

he has filed his own case at the icc accusing israel of incitement to genocide. to the omer. before getting into the details of your case, what are your i hope his attempts to intimidate court or inti'oidate the flat a —~~~—7—~7—~————r—— the destabilise the international lorder just a 7 order will lorder wil7lt a 7 777.7orde7r7wil7l7fail7,77 77 77 "’.;r§e’;w'ii’fai,’5.2.55; legal order will fail, because, legal order will fail, because, you know, as trump says, as you you know, as trump says, as you said now, us said just now, the us and are not israel are not party and they 7 are not7 party and 77 7 77ar7e 7not7 p7a7rty7a7nd they israel are not party and they they have no claim they have no claim they have no jurisdiction, they argue jurisdiction, they can argue jurisdiction, they can argue that in and if they did that in court. and if they did they would and maybe they would prevail and evenif maybe they would prevail and if they didn't commit maybe they would prevail and even if they didn't commit any even ifthey didn�*tcommit any crimes, genocide, atrocious crimes, genocide, war crimes against crimes, crimes against humanity, they have crimes, crimes against humanity, they have nothing to

77z=§ fear of. and just a little 7: e of. ju7sta 7 correction, including with respect to my case, we don't bring cases against the state, it is not the us that is at trial or israeli was a trial, we're looking at individual criminal responsibility of potentially israeli officials and so on. so it's not about any campaign against a certain state or its (indistinct) even. other than that we are facing it, it is not only about israel and palestine, or afghanistan, it is an attack on international law and the legal order that was established after nuremberg and after world war ii, it should be of concern to any person and to the rule of law and to human rights. we appreciate _ of law and to human rights. we appreciate that clarification, thank you for that. do tell us more about the case that you are bringing against a list of

israeli government figures and what evidence you are presenting.— what evidence you are presenting. what evidence you are ”resentin. . , presenting. the evidence is . uite presenting. the evidence is quite not — presenting. the evidence is quite not in _ presenting. the evidence is quite not in dispute, - presenting. the evidence is i quite not in dispute, because the evidence relies on statements made on 7 october and onwards until recently, repeated statements inciting and publicly and directly inciting others to commit genocide. so what is particular in this case is that it is not a case about genocide.

committed or not it's the only kind you don't have to prove the mankind, in this case, it focused on onl on the a sac. cad, 7t7° .,.,, a, as. 77 eb cotttrftit777 77 eb commit7g7e7nocide. harm 777h;7'm77b7e7in7g777 7 737 7h;7'm77b7e7in7g777 7 77a7risk such a genocide. such a geno7cide. so,7just to of such a genocide. so, just to we not arguing there was a genocide or that there was a genocide or there was not, the only mode of oi’ 7 77 775} amenity 77 we show for first time that we show for the first time come you don't you cannot come you don't need to establish whether what happened on the ground, because we don't know, we're not underground, and so on, so the evidence relies only on the syldeocsaelies only on the are such, syldeoceetelies only on the are such, it a crime and _7 crime and thr speech crime and they are showing how the targeted we re were dehumanised 7 were dehumanised by popdlation were dehomanised by public official. it this public official. omer, it is worth stressing, - this public official. omer, it| is worth stressing, although are accusing israel of you are not accusing israel of genocide, that it has rejected other allegations of genocide

and says consistently 7 this 7 this conflict it has to defend itself, the right to defend itself, to 7 by pointing to 7 october attack by hamas in which nearly 1200 killed. similar will be to defence will be presented to �* case. defence will be presented to �*case. what defence will be presented to �* case. what do you say to defence will be - do you say to defencewillbe = ~ ~- ~= l of course 7 october, that of course 7 october, , they were so atrocious, was a large incentive to it was a large incentiye to in a that exceeds retaliate in a way that exceeds the lord's —— laws of armed conflict so on t