the, the, this would be the news, live it from berlin to night. the you wins top court rules that israel's occupation in palestinian territories is illegal. the judge's said is rarely settlement policies violated international law. it should be abandoned, but the ruling is advisory and not binding. also, coming up at donald trump tells republicans that he was saved from an assassin's bullet because god was on his saw. we'll hear from an author who specializes in decoding the language used by the former president and a russian court sentences, a us journalist, the 16 years in prison, on spying charge, the white house condemning the corner store trial of wall street journal reporter

evan verse. could it just calling it a shame the i bring golf is good to have you with this on this friday today. the united nations top court room that is real settlements in the palace. jenny and territories violated international law and must be a band. the court found that israel's occupation amounted to annexation, and that palestinians were systematically discriminated against in the occupied territories. the advisory opinion is non binding, but it comes as pressure grows on israel over the war and gaza. the human general assembly as the international court of justice back in 2022 to assess israel's occupation, settlement and annexation of palestinian land to deliver its adviser also is the

you in stop. court says that israel's occupation is not only unlawful and also says it amounts to an annexation. so to what extent is this new language? i asked monica, i can be a professor of law at columbia university in new york. it's a significant, it's a significant opinion. and the language is quite new, it's new and a number of her size. first of all, as you mentioned, because the court decided that israel's conduct in the house and in territories did amounts to an annexation, which the court defined as an efforts to acquire sovereign title to, to that territory. as is, the opinion is also significant because it decide in a, in a way that it had not. and in this early our opinion that israel was occupying the entire house in your territory. and this includes east jerusalem, the west bank and gaza strip. so both of those decisions work, both of those pronouncements for quite significant and novel relative to what the

court had previously said about israel. and when we hear the word an exemption, it makes me wonder what is the difference between what we're seeing with the occupied territories, the palestinian territories, and what we saw back in 2014, when russia legally annexed crimea? or is there a difference in the the eyes of the wall? i think that's exactly the right question to be asking for many, many years. amex stations were sort of off the table. there was one of the time, of course, when international law permitted the acquisition of territory by force and through the massive efforts to change that law which took well over a century. the law now provides that actually the acquisition of territory by force is unlawful. in recent years, we've seen efforts to increasingly tried to increase efforts to try to acquire territory by force and violation of this foundational principle. and we see it in

ukraine. we see efforts to acquire territory by force and the south china sea and in areas that are contested in the himalayas. and we've seen it in now the middle east as well. and so this trend toward the efforts to acquire territory by force annexations is something that is quite, quite terrifying, quite frankly, because efforts to acquire territory. but for some historically, of course, been associated with world wars, words of colonization and massive amounts of human suffering. as we've seen both in the brain and then gather this opinion, this ruling it is advisory, it's not legally binding, but is the power here really? the fact that with this ruling, the humans top court has put b is really government policy, basically in the same boat with vladimir putin. is that the power of this really?

i think the ruling is powerful because although it's not formally binding, it is the court of the united nations, which is the pre eminent court, international law and many are looking to it's to try to help sort out and reconfigure the situation in the middle. the specifically relating to israel and palestine, and that authority to pronounce lands even if not finding is very likely to affect the dynamics in the middle east and perhaps elsewhere in the world where annexations are back on the table. so it's not just in my view significant because it's 2 ties. israel's conduct to russia is conduct because it is significant because it is designed to and i think it's very likely to have a significant impact on how various players who are sort of operating directly or indirectly in the middle east are likely to continue to do so. going forward and restructure their directions going forward. if israel ignores the i,

c j as it has before. does this open the door then maybe for the palestinians to receive or perhaps even sue for reparations. another way, as well as the court said, among other things, but israel is obligated by virtue is bye of its violations of international law to provide full reparations to the people and as a result of interest to the palestinian people essentially. and so the question is, because is, how are those reparations going to be pursued and paid? i suspect that israel is not going to be very quick to offer up preparations, and then other bodies of the, in the world other states, other international organizations. specifically, the united nations will then have to decide whether to try to put in place mechanisms to, to sort of compel israel to provide for reparations, or the very least, to start making registry. and accounting of the arms paused so that reparations,

when they might be on the table, can actually be paid out, and the amount paid can be non law. professor monica, i can be at columbia university professor. we appreciate your time and your valuable analysis tonight. thank you. thank you. all right, i want to take the story now to jerusalem and i'm joined by our special corresponded or uber. him i, it's good to see you tell me what has been the reaction from israeli and palestinian officials? surely it's nice. all you do you hear me? it's brent. do we have that signal setup? hello. okay, well we apologize for that. we try to get that signal up a little bit later. all right, let's go to the united states j biden's campaign manager. says that the president

is absolutely still in the running for re election in november and will return to the campaign trail next week. fighting has been self isolating since a positive coven 19 tests force them to cancel appearances. the 81 year old is facing roy ring pressure from top democrats, who are worried that he cannot be donald trump of the trump campaign. by contrast remains of beach, the republican national convention has closed with trumpet, formerly accepting his party's nomination and calling for unity. in his 1st speech, then surviving an assassination attempt, the former president told the republicans that he was saved by the grace of god. he also talked about his campaign go, but he gave a few details about how he would achieve. i'm here to night to lay out a vision for the whole nation to every citizen, whether you're a young or old man or woman, democrat, republican, or independent black or white,

asian, or hispanic. i extend to you a hand of loyalty and of friendship. together we will lead america to new heights of great. it is like the world has never seen before as well. the author and professor jennifer emergency, it is an experts in decoding political language. she told me how trumps rhetoric how it's changed. it's very familiar actually. um, you know, i think that he had less energy this year. i think that he was trying to convey that he has changed and so it's sort of was in the performance of the script, which he of course rambled on quite a bit and didn't follow his script. but i think it was a little bit in the tone of voice more than it was in the content or the tone itself. everyone was expecting for him to make overtures and to say, you know, that we ought to unite as a country. he said those words,

but i actually didn't hear him making appeal. so unification instead, he was saying essentially that the democratic party ought to capitulate to have you to the g or p put on a huge show this we trump's name. we, as we just saw a big lights and you use the word. performative, i'm wondering, is political speech. and the age of trump. is it simply performative speech as it is performative? um, you know, there's sort of the job of politics, attending the meetings and making the decisions. and then there is the performance of the presidency on the american political stage and america's political theater. and donald trump has always excelled at the performative element of it, at least with his base. and he's able to connect with them in a way that, you know, they really enjoy listening to him. they, they feel as though he is this famous business man. you know, who is the defeating their enemies for them,

which is what he tells them repeatedly. and you know, they really enjoy his showmanship. of course, his detractors don't see him in such a positive light. well, where does all of this then lead substance? i mean, politics is supposed to be about policy and not just personality, isn't it? it absolutely is. politics ought to be about compromise and about problem solving. but the way that american politics has changed over the last 30 years or so is really about effective polarization. meaning that it's more about how you feel about your opposition than it is about solving political problems. and unfortunately, the more polarized we become, the more polarizing political figures, rise to the, for america's political theater. and how do you explain what is happening to end around president biden? i mean, age issues a side. he is a politician who likes to talk policy or yeah,

he is. and he isn't very good at performing the role of the president for america's political theater. you know, newspaper subscriptions are down. he doesn't generate a lot of interest or drama. donald trump did do those things. he generated a lot of interest and drama. people were very concerned every morning when they woke up. what's donald trump done now? and there isn't that interest in biden. and so that affects the way we understand his presidency. he's had more policy successes than most presidents have such and when political scientists rank american presidents, they rank him 14 right out of all of the presidents in america because of his policy successes. but he doesn't seem to perform that role well on tv. in the syllabus of your presidential communication course, cuz i was looking at the courses that you teach you right? that there has been a distinct disruption in presidential communication over the past 4 years. is that

disruption is it now the norm? well, we'll see, right. so you probably are very familiar with the term outrage media, right? so there's a whole genre of media that is designed to elicit and invoke outreach in its audience. and so it keeps them attentive. it kind of keeps them on edge, you know, wondering like, who should we be mad at today? and donald trump has capitalized on outreach media. he's the outrage president and he's very good at outraging his base by saying everything is corrupt and you know, they're out to get you and everything is terrible. and he's also very good at outraging his opposition by doing things that are a typical in on presidential by using ad hominem attacks. and that's a force and intimidation saying things like, i want to be

a dictator on day one. all of that means that what he's essentially doing is outraging the left and the right in order to draw more and more attention to himself. and because there is no president who has been as good as he is doing that . i've got about 30 seconds the professor, your book is being called a vaccine against the virus that threatens the survival of democracy. when you say, we are a long way away from heard immunity, i were in danger. democracy is in danger. and, you know, there are organizations that studied democratic erosion and democratic back sliding all of the features that they indicate are threats to the stability of democracy. are things that are present in the united states at this moment and are worsening. and so, you know, i think every little bit of critical analysis that we can use it helpful, but the problem is big progressing machine. unfortunately we're out of time,

but we appreciate you taking the time to talk with us on this friday. thank you. thank you. oh then we'll go back now to our top story, the humans top court today ruling the israel's occupation of the palestinian territories is illegal. let's go now to jerusalem. are special corresponding abraham. she's on that story for us. so i have what has been the reaction from israeli and palestinian officials when we've heard a perhaps, and surprisingly palestinian officials commend this a ruling. we heard the palestinian foreign minister monkeys say that this with this ruling, the i c, j has fulfilled its moral obligation in duty, and that according to this ruling other countries should. now i'm paraphrasing the quote, provide no aid, no money, no complicity, no arms and no trade, which is real. and that's something that will be seeing power.