>> israel. gaza under siege. hundreds of israelis killed and abducted by hamas fighters. communities pounded by rocket fire. do civilians have any protection under international law? this is inside story. ♪ hello and welcome to the program.

victims and the gaza war are civilians. thousands of palestinians have been killed or injured. the numbers keep rising. israel is intensifying its bombing of gaza after mass shootings and abductions of israelis by hamas fighters. one of the most densely populated areas on earth is now under complete siege, depriving 2.5 million people of food, medicine, and water supplies. hamas has fired barrage after barrage of rockets into israeli towns and cities. protection of civilians is a fundamental principle of international law governing conflict. what role is it playing here? we will beats -- be discussing this with our guests. first, this report. >> a humanitarian crisis is unfolding in gaza. israel's bombing campaign has killed hundreds of palestinians and forced tens of thousands from their homes. gaza is under complete siege.

no food, water, fuel is getting into the enclave. the u.n. human rights office regards this as a violation of international law. >> sieges that endanger the lives of civilians by depriving them of goods essential for their survival is prohibited under international humanitarian law. any restriction on the movement of people and goods to implement a siege must be justified by military necessity or it may amount to collective punishment. >> the european union has issued a warning to israel, saying its military operation is -- in gaza is going too far. >> israel has the right to defend but it has to be done accordingly with international law, humanitarian law. some decisions are counter to international law. >> the attacks by hamas have been widely condemned. the armed groups assault on israel targeted civilians.

many have been abducted and taken back to gaza. hamas has threatened to kill an israeli captive every time israel bombs a palestinian home without warning. >> i recognize the legitimate grievances of the palestinian people. but nothing can justify these acts of terror and the killing, maiming, and adduction of civilians. i reiterate my call to immediately seize these attacks and release hostages. >> the israeli military insists its campaign is in line with international law. >> we remain committed to the law -- -- conflict and we conduct ourselves according. we are furious, angry, frustrated, and appalled by the atrocities that hamas has done against us. we still keep our morals and we make sure that we fight according to the laws that we are committed to. >> israel has support from

allies in washington. the biden administration draws distinction between attacks by hamas and israel's bombing of gaza which it describes as self-defense. >> in this moment, we must be crystal clear. we stand with israel. terrorists purposely target civilians to kill them. we uphold the laws of war. it matters. there's a difference. >> ordinary people are paying the heaviest price in this war. international law is supposed to shield noncombatants. with few consequences for those who break it, how much protection does the law offer? vincent monahan for inside story. ♪ >> let's bring in our guest now for today's inside story. in london, jeffrey mice, barrister and former prosecutor at the international criminal

court. in chicago is the israeli palestine director at human rights watch. he wrote a report two years ago on israeli war crimes against palestinians and was deported from israel. in ontario, canada is the professor emeritus in the faculty of law at western university. welcome. thank you for joining us on inside story. michael link, if i can start with you. the airstrikes have been indiscriminate and widespread in response to hamas's surprise attack on israel. help us understand what the rules of engagement and fundamental principles that both parties in this conflict are expected to follow under international law. specifically, what israel's obligations are as the occupying power? >> sure.

the occupying power is the protection of the protected people under occupation. that's to ensure their well-being, that their first interests are top of mind. in the moment -- moment of conflict, there must be -- the occupying power must make a distinction between civilian and military objects. it is for bidden to be able to target civilian populations, either directly or through their property or through their means of subsistence. the other aspect of this is obviously the siege that's going on now. we know that gaza has been under a blockade since 2006.

one of my reports to the united nations stated that this amounted to collective punishment which is absently forbidden under article 33 of the 14 convention. the total seems that has been placed on gaza now since the weekend, cutting off water, sanitation, food, any kind of supply getting into gaza is forbidden under international humanitarian law. it's for been to use starvation or the deprivation of any kind of this is it is of life. there are a number of areas of deep concern with international law. >> a number of violations being committed here by the israelis. what about violent resistance against the occupation? is that legal? >> the answer is yes, but the answer is that it also must be done with very clear boundaries.

people under occupation, colonialism have had the right to resist their subjugation. that must be done within the rules of international law. in particular, it means even though you may be using the right to visit -- resist, you cannot target civilians. you cannot fire rockets into civilian areas. you cannot kidnap civilians or kill them. this applies to any side of the conflict. whether it's the occupying power or resistance force trying to beat back the occupying power. all of them have to obey the rules of international law in terms of who you target and what military actions you wind up committing. >> i want to bring you on this particular point and clarify something with you that a lot of people are asking about.

that's the fact that hamas is a nonstate actor in this conflict. both israel and u.s. politicians have characterized him as attack on israel as terrorism. targeting civilians under international law is illegal under the rules of war. but those rules are set by countries that govern themselves . what about nonstate actors like hamas? what is the law regarding them? >> the law is a bit unsettled. as a nonstate actor, arguably they may not be fully entitled to argue self-defense in the way that it has. the whole issue has to be approached. it has been helpfully described by my colleague as what has to happen in respective occupying a power. so the position is exactly as

explained. they can resist the occupying power there. those in gaza can resist the occupying power within the law using force but without breaking the law. they may not have to consider the possible defense, self-defense that's been raised by israel. that doesn't change the duty on them to act lawfully. i'm afraid we are in the position -- i don't join one side of the other. the position is clear that the opening actions of this particular part of this unhappy, long-term conflict, the opening actions are not lawful. you cannot go and kill people at a party in the way that they were killed, and other civilians. so it's a complicated issue. the rule to keep in mind is that both sides are subject to the limitations that may abide because of their different

status. the basic point has to be that the rule of law -- >> was saturday's action the opening action? or is it the occupation that has lasted over 70 years? >> well, it's the opening action of this part of the long contest or long series of contests. and how that would play out in a court of law is not entirely easy to forecast. indeed, the whole question of self-defense, of a country vis-a-vis or against a nonstate actor, which would be the position for israel here, has never been played out yet in the court of law. if i may just interpose this point. something of great importance. why is this matter not and never for a court of law? there are courts that should and could have dealt with the earlier events including

protective edge in 2014 and the other mowing the grass as they are called. attacks by israel. they are never considered because israel is not a participating member of the international criminal court. >> let me bring omar should care into the conversation if i may. your thoughts about what we've heard so far from them? based on the information that human rights watch has observed on the ground the past few days. what would you say are the potential war crimes that are being committed by either side right now? >> we are here precisely because parties have flagrantly violated international humanitarian law. in the first few days of this conflict, we are seeing much of the same. we should be crystal clear.

hamas's brutal assault on southern israel, including deliberately targeting civilians, taking women and children as hostages, those are war crimes. they have no justification. we've seen the israeli army pound the densely populated gaza strip over days and evenings. this includes dropping explosive weapons with wide area affects into gaza. we've seen large numbers of civilians killed including children. we've seen highs rise buildings reduced to rubble. we've seen the cutting of electricity, fuel, water, of the entry of goods and humanitarian aid. this is a clear war crime which is not only collective punishment, 2.2 million people punished for the actions of an individual.

it's also potentially starvation as a tool of war. we will see where things go in the coming days. it authorities have a long track record of committing serious war crimes in gaza including deliberately targeting civilian billions -- buildings, destroying buildings without any apparent military target there. we are seeing a real dissent into darkness. >> can i ask you about one specific aspect of all this? the laws of war require the warring parties to give effective warning advance of attacks that may affect civilian populations. we've seen this happen in the past in gaza where the of israeli military has given warning to civilians. is it happening in this current conflict? are they effective warning signs given to the palestinian population of gaza? >> i think we are too early in our research to make conclusions. we've heard in our research examples of where warnings have

been provided. there have been allegations where warnings are not provided. let me be clear on the law. even where warnings are provided, that does not make an airstrike necessarily legal. we've documented in previous rounds of escalations after warnings have been given, destroying high-rise buildings with hundreds of homes and businesses solely because there may have been an office for palestinian armed group there. something like that would be a violation of international law, a disproportionate. the warnings themselves don't give you cart launch to kill. the fact that a warning has not been given certainly if it involves civilian casualties could be evidence of a war crime . it's important to note that we have a lot of disinformation out there. there are a lot of things happening in real-time. these things require detailed investigations. the israeli government is blocking access to gaza, to u.n.

mechanisms, to human rights organizations. i think we need to be careful in making concrete claims. there are some that we can make based on the brazenness which with they've been carried out. others will take time. >> it's interesting that you point out to the disinformation. i'm curious to find out how the media coverage and public perspective -- perception may impact efforts to uphold international law. let me come back to you and ask you a question of proportionality. how does international law defined proportionality and distinction in armed conflicts. >> you are not to target civilian populations. you are to try to minimize to the absolute degree possible any harm to civilians or to their property.

in terms of the question of proportionality, it is permitted international lot to choose a military target which might consequences. if the advantage militarily is in favor of attacking that. it's important that militaries never use these rules loosely. israel has been cited on a number of occasions on reviews of its attacks, particularly in gaza or lebanon, that it has a very flexible or elastic definition with respect to these strict rules on international humanitarian law and how you are choosing particular targets. we can see in virtually every one of the major conflicts or assaults on gaza that have occurred since 2009 that there

are many credible instances where these roles have been disregarded. one example i can cite you now is 2014 when roughly 2300 palestinians were killed in gaza over the course of the 50 day war pigot two thirds of those were civilians. there were many instances where questions or from conclusions were drawn that the way in which israel targeted the destruction of buildings or the targeting of middleton's. too high of a price with respect to civilian lines, civilian lending to be justified under the laws of war. >> we've heard both sides have broken the rules of war. we've heard leaders calling on israel to exercise restraint in response to the attacks it suffered.

the biden administration in the u.s. has given the green light to israel to retaliate against hamas, vowing unconditional support for netanyahu's war. as michael ling said, we've been here before in 2014 where the rules of war were again ignored. what consequences then? what avenues are there for accountability if this keeps continuing to happen? >> there are very limited avenues of accountability as long as israel remains immune so far as the international criminal court is concerned and as long as america would ban any referral to that court by the security council. this is a matter of real concern . the rules of law have been so helpfully explained by the two other speakers. they require a great deal of

israel. they require not just a proportionality that we've heard of but proper recordkeeping. in the case of gaza, if you decide you want to target a particular dwelling or household building because of who you say will be in it, you will have to have regard to the impossibility of avoiding collateral damage in the form of human, civilian suffering and death because of the nature of the building, the limited ability or inability of civilians to escape from the area where the particular targeted building is going to be bombed. this detail in legitimate defense of this kind of bombing is never going to be available for the public to see. israel is kept away from any formal criminal court. that's the position at the moment.

it has been clear that israel is having to avoid official investigation into its practices. when the invite -- official investigation happens with respect to the war, it is just disregarded. when biden said, as he said yesterday, he said, we respect the rule of law. one is entitled to ask him, if you respect the rule of law, why aren't you prepared to join the international criminal court and not to ban the access to the victims who are the concerns on all sides. when i was in gaza shortly after the 2014 protective edge event, i spoke to the leader of hamas

for a program on this channel that was never aired. he indicated at that stage that he was prepared for this and prosecutor to enter gaza and consider that in the federal courts. that wasn't going to be possible and israel would never cooperate. >> what is possible today? israel is not part of the statute. what avenues are there for accountability today? >> the international criminal court has a former probe -- formal probe on palestine. the court has set out that they have jurisdiction over crimes committed in palestine. that would include what's happening in gaza with the israeli airstrikes, with tools like the complete cutting of electricity and water and everything else, including rocket strikes and other attacks that originate from gaza.

that's there. the international criminal court released a statement yesterday outlining that the current context fits within part of their mandate. we know there's also not a criminal proceeding that the international court of justice has been asked by the human to issue an advisory about the legal consequences. the human has mechanisms including a commission with a mandate. the current offense with -- which fit within that mandate have jurisdiction over crimes of the gravity we are seeing on the ground to investigate and prosecute. we have the mechanisms there. what we have lacked is the political will to actually ensure that impunity. so long as impunity continues, we are here precisely because we've seen unlawful attacks, systematic repression take

praise with impunity for years and decades. this needs to be addressed. >> how do we make sure that impunity ends? what should the international community be doing to protect civilians more? >> i opening thought is that we are here in another dreadful situation precisely because we haven't married international law with respect to the obligations of israel and hamas with international resolve. as long as international law continues to be sidelined, either through the peace process , the oslo process in 1993, or with a host of un security council and resolutions. israel learns the lesson that impunity is a reward for them. so i would agree with omar that we have the path to accountability through the investigations that i've been going on since 2015.

with the office of the prosecutor at the international criminal court. alas, justice moves slowly. the sun rises slowly with respect to this. every several years, we are adding a huge file to the icc with respect to what's going on in palestine, with no great movement through the formal investigation process. i do want to point out one issue quickly. we've had three major commissions of inquiry after the 2008, 2009 conflict in gaza, after the 2014, 2018 great return. each of these three major reports issued by the human rights council pointed to the prevalence of impunity, the lack of accountability with respect to this. one of the reports says, we have a justice crisis into the gaza

-- occupied palestinian territory. it's imperative that the international community learn the lessons that ignoring international law when it comes to israel and palestine only begs the repetition of these awful events. >> given the evolving nature of this conflict and warfare, how should international law adapt to address these challenges that we've talked about and protect human rights more effectively in gaza, the palace billion territories, and beyond? >> how should the law adapt? it's not the law that adapts. it's the contribution of your last speaker that is so important. the citizen of the world has the idea, mistaken, that there's a world order of law for war. there isn't. there are bits and pieces and it suits the politicians and the leaders of the most powerful

countries for it to remain that way. it's not for the law to adapt. it's for the leaders to show the determination that the law should become universal and should be accessible, by which i mean accessible to the benefit and purposes of the victims wherever events like this occur. it's a tragedy not just concerning israel but concerning many other countries. the lessons available to us after the second world war, when we learned how humans can behave to humans and we set up another -- number of instruments in order to save us from it happening again. it's a tragedy that we haven't learned that lesson. >> your final thoughts? >> -- allowing corruption of the legal process to be maintained by inactivity of the big state players. >> your final thoughts on this? >> what we are seeing in israel palestine is a challenge to the

rules-based international order. we see the western world railing around international law, accountability when it comes to ukraine. that's too often been lacking in israel palestine. as long as the situation in which impunity runs wild and we are not defending the fundamental international legal order, it undermines that production everywhere around the world. it's not only an imperative given the urgent humanitarian situation on the ground but it's an imperative to protecting the very rules that were created decades ago to protect people around the world from that, from war and its effects. as long as we allow this to continue, we fail to recognize the reality for what it is and ensure that international law is protected, that up unity ends, that apartheid against palestinians is recognized for what it is. we will continue to see civilians in israel palestine and around the world at peril. >> thank you all very much.

thank you for a very insightful discussion. thank you was well for watching. you can watch this program again anytime by visiting our website at al jazeera.com. go to our facebook page for further discussion. you can join the conversation on. thanks for watching. goodbye for now. ♪

kim turner: in 1979, the punk rock scene in los angeles was exploding. john doe: chinatown opened things up. it was absolutely the home base for punk rock. louis jacinto: madame wong's and the hong kong cafe, they needed customers, and the bands needed venues to play. eugene moy: what we heard upstairs was unharmonious. alice bag: both places had lines around the block. turner: madame wong's told bands, "if you play over there, you'll never play here." bag: and that's when the war started. keith morris: it was just chaos. ♪