-- it is an impossible situation . this is the second time, around 14 hours. let's hope they're not going to keep doing that. this is affecting the medical teams. it is really dangerous. amy: how old are your children? you are frozen. how old are your children? >> i have two children, five years old and 2.5. hopefully, we will manage to stay alive during this chaos and

madness and they can see a brighter future. my son who is two years old has witnessed a lot. my five-year-old daughter witnessed more than a lot for a child to witness from this madness around us. i keep saying to myself and can tell you, i feel guilty because i brought my children in this place. i regret having them in this terrible situation. amy: yousef hammash, thank you for being with us, advocacy officer in gaza for the norwegian refugee council. born in the jabalia refugee camp. your final message? we are based here in the united states. to the u.s. government, the american population, and globally around the world. >> i think the world needs to

react and act seriously stopping this madness. it is more than enough for us to suffer and see what we are seeing currently. the world needs to accept responsibility toward us as a human being. it is more than enough. we have already suffered [indiscernible] the world needs to stand the responsibility toward us as human need. amy: thank you, yousef hammash, for making the effort despite all of these difficulties to speak to us today. again yousef , hammash, advocacy officer in gaza for the norwegian refugee council. grew up, was born in the jabalia refugee camp, the largest refugee camp in gaza. when we come back, we will be joined by craig mokhiber, top u.n. official in new york who

has resigned saying the u.n. has failed to stop what he called a genocide unfolding in gaza. back in a moment. ♪ [music break]

amy: natalie merchant recently signed an open letter titled "artist call for cease fire now" alongside actors, playwrights, and is supported by ausa. this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. a top united nations official in new york has resigned and has accused the united nations of failing to address what he calls a textbook case of genocide unfolding in gaza. craig mokhiber is a longtime international human rights lawyer who served as director of the new york office of the united nations high commissioner for human rights.

he had worked at the united nations since 1992 and had lived in gaza in the 1990's. in a letter addressed to the u.n. high commissioner for human rights volker türk, mokhiber wrote -- "in gaza, civilian homes, schools, churches, mosques, and medical institutions are wantonly attacked as thousands of civilians are massacred. in the west bank, including occupied jerusalem, homes are seized and reassigned based entirely on race, and violent settler pogroms are accompanied by israeli military units. across the land, apartheid rules. what's more, the governments of the united states, the united kingdom, and much of europe, are wholly complicit in the horrific assault. not only are these governments refusing to meet their treaty obligations 'to ensure respect' for the geneva conventions, but they are in fact actively arming the assault, providing economic and

intelligence support, and giving political and diplomatic cover for israel's atrocities." on tuesday, the u.n. lisa statement about his resignation saying, "i can confirm he is retiring today. he informed the u.n. in march of his upcoming retirement which takes effect tomorrow. the views in his letter are his personal views." craig mokhiber joins us now in new york, the first day he is not working for the united nations. welcome to democracy now! >> good to be here. amy: talk about why you left. >> i originally registered my concerns in writing to the high commissioner in march, as you heard from that statement, in the wake of a wave of human rights violations on the west bank, including a pogrom at that time. at that time, i complained about what i saw as a trepidations response by many in the united

nations and an effort to try to silence some of the human rights critique u.n. officials, including myself -- i admit to feeling a great of frustration. at that moment, indicating i would be resigning from the u.n. effect of this month. of course, the situation got much worse than in which is why i was particularly compelled to write this latest letter to the high commissioner to put on record my very serious concerns about how we were failing to address the unfolding events in the occupied territories. amy: what do you think the united nations, the united states, the west, u.k. should be doing right now? >> i think there is an obligation on the part of all member states of the united nations, including the states in the west to respond in accordance with their obligations under international law, including internationally

commended terry in law. i central point in the most recent letter was that we had effectively left international law behind when the international community embraced the oslo process, which sort of raised notions of political expediency about the requirements of international law. that was a real loss for human rights in palestine. i think there was an obligation on the part of all states, not just respect international humanitarian law and human rights law, but under the geneva conventions, to ensure respect. it is clear many states, including the u.s., have not only -- are not only in breach of the obligation to ensure respect, vis-à-vis the states with influence, in this case israel, but haven't actively engaged in arming diplomatic cover and political support, intelligence support, and so on. that is a breach of international commended terry law. the opposite of that.

we need to ensure an end to these attacks on civilians in gaza, to ensure as well as country building for the perpetrators for the protection for the vulnerable. we have a formula at the united nations that is applied to virtually every other conflict situation. but when it comes to israel and palestine, there's a different set of rules, apparently. that is a big source of my frustration. where is the transitional justice process? where is the u.n. protection force? where is the tribunal for accountability? where is the action on the part of the security council? beasley come every effort in the security council is vetoed by the united states itself in further indication of the kind of complicity about which i am referring. i think the other thing that needs to happen in the

international community is we have to abandon the failed paradigms of the past on a political level and get back to the roots which is international law, international human rights. what has happened in the context of the so-called also process, the two state solution, the u.n. cortege, they have acted effectively as a smokescreen behind which we have seen further and worsening dispossession of palestinian, massive atrocities such as we are witnessing now. the loss of homes and land, further settlement activity. it is an open secret inside the holes of that -- halls of the united nations the so-called two state solution is effectively impossible now. there's nothing left for sustainable state for the palestinian people and takes no account of fundamental human rights of the palestinian people. the new paradigm has to be one based upon equality of all people, equal rights for christians, muslims, and jews.

i think as well, it is interesting this year we are commemorating the 70 foot anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights adopted in 1948. that same year, the nakba occurred and apartheid was adopted in south africa. you see because of the consisted international human rights approach in the u.n. and interested community that apartheid in south africa fell. we did not take the same approach in palestine. we deferred to these political processes and as a result not only have we not seen an end, we have seen a continuing worsening of the situation. amy: you are a long time lawyer. i what you to respond -- i played this already for yousef hammash in gaza right now in khan younis to respond, but i would like you to respond to it as well. after israel's attack on jabalia yesterday, the idf spokesperson

appeared on cnn, was interviewed by wolf blitzer. >> you know there are a lot of refugees, citizen civilians, men, women, and children in that refugee camp as well, right? >> this is a tragedy of war. we have been saying for days, civilians are not involved with hamas please move -- >> you knew there were civilians. you knew there were refugees but you decided still to drop a bomb on that refugee camp, attempting to kill this hamas commander. by the way, was he killed? >> i can't confirm. there will be more updates. about the civilians, we're doing every thing we can to minimize. amy: he is saying they're doing everything they can to minimize. he is talking about the hamas

commander saying he was killed in this recent strikes. can you respond every aspect of what he said? they were trying to get a high-value target, as they put it, and they are not trying to kill civilians. >> i think what is important in the interview is that is another of many indications of intent on the part of israeli authorities that will be very important in a court of law. he has that openly they knew of the concentrations of civilians there and yet in violation of the principle of distinction and humanitarian law and on the pretext of killing one combatant wiped out the better part of anti-refugee camp, densely populated refugee camp. what is interesting is that open statement of intent. i referred my letter to the case for genocide which is happening

now. genocide is a very politicized term, often abuse. in this case, the hardest part of proving genocide has been proven for as with these very open statements of genocidal intent by israeli officials, including the prime minister and president and senior cabinet members and military officials who in their public statements have indicated very clearly their intention not to distinguish between civilians and combatants and to carry out the kinds of wholesale slaughter we are witnessing in gaza. that is not a justification in international law, saying there was a combatant there for that very disproportionate use of firepower against what was a civilian target. that is what we have been seeing in all of gaza from the north to the south. the other thing is this claim, well, we told them to move south and therefore we can kill everybody who did not move. this is an extremely dangerous and unlawful tactic that is

being used. first, we know evacuations in gaza in the best of times in this densely populated, small territory with 2.3 million civilians crowded in with very limited infrastructure, is a huge challenge. it must've gaza has been bombed into rubble. it is not physically possible for civilians to move in the ways israel has require them to do so. we know already well-documented when they do so, they are bond even in the south of the gaza strip. this seems to be evidence of intent and prima facie case for violations of the laws of war. amy: has called for and try to get tears to resign after he said hamas's october 7 did not happen in a vacuum. this is the you and ambassador --u.n. abbasid or. >> mr. secretary general, the

u.n. was established to prevent atrocities that hamas committed but the u.n. is failing. the u.n. is failing, and you, mr. secretary general have lost all morality and impartiality because when you say those terrible words that these heinous attack did not happen in a vacuum, you are tolerating terrorism. and by tolerating terrorism, you are justifying terrorism. amy: that is israel's ambassador to the united nations. craig mokhiber, your response? >> you can imagine why the ambassador would want to start the clock holy in october and to ignore the decades upon decades of persecution against the palestine people in gaza, in the

west bank, in jerusalem, inside israel proper. but that is not the kind of assessment that leads to peace or an improved situation on the ground. the secretary-general was doing his job. he had condemned the loss of civilian life in the hamas attack and he also criticized not just what israel was doing in gaza, but all of the events that have led up to this situation. and that is what i mean by a need to break from the failed paradigm of the past. we need to get into something that says human beings are entitled to human rights under international law and the duty of the international community is to ensure protection for all under the rule of law, but also kind ability for perpetrators and redress for victims. i am not surprised at that statement. we have seen a lot of extreme statements from that particular ambassador, a lot of theater as

well. i don't think we should allow it to distract us what is happening on the ground, which is the wholesale loss of life of innocent civilians in the thousands, putting thousands of children in the gaza strip. we need to get to an immediate cease-fire and then shift into a new approach that will prevent this from happening again and again and again. amy: i am wondering about the role of the lead prosecutor of the international criminal court. i think he was in rafah a few days ago. we see the world's response or the west's response when it came to russia invading ukraine and occupying ukraine. khan very soon after opened a whole investigation into crimes against humanity that putin was committing in ukraine. can you respond to the difference in approach to russia and ukraine and israel and the

occupied territories? officially, international law, the opt, the occupied palestinian territories? >> there has been a stunning inconsistency with the rapidity with which the court was able to move and prosecutor was able to move with regard to ukraine and the years upon years in which it has dragged its feet with regard to palestine. this is just when he critiques of the court -- many critiques of the court. it does not have a strong record of holding northern countries to account for their crimes under international criminal law and yet is very anxious to move forward on cases in the global south. that is not to condemn the court. the court is a young institution. it needs to be strengthened. it needs to insulate itself from the kinds of political pressure that led to its inaction in the case of palestine. but our hope ultimately is

the peaceful resolution through international law. if that is going to happen, we need a robust and fair international criminal court that does not provide for exceptionalism, for powerful countries of the north like israel, for example, but holds all perpetrators of international crimes to account. the court has a long way to go before it is going to have the reputation that will bring confidence globally that it is meeting its mandate under the statute. amy: on monday, the white house press secretary compared pro-palestinian protesters to the white supremacists who took part in the deadly unite the right rally in charlottesville, virginia, in 2017. she comment in response to ashton from peter doocy. >> the anti-israel protesters in this country are extremists? >> what we have been very clear about when it comes to

anti-semitism, there is no place. we have to make sure we speak against it very loud and be very clear about that. remember, what the president -- when the president decided to run for president is what he saw in charlottesville in 2017. saw neo-nazis arching down the streets of charlottesville with vile anti-semitic, hatred. he was very clear then and very clear now taking actions against this over the past two years. he has continued to be clear, there is no place for this type of vile rhetoric. amy: that is president biden's spokesperson. craig mokhiber, your response? >> i think one of the most disturbing aspects of this current situation in the north, in countries like the u.s. and europe, has been is rather unprecedented crackdown on human rights defenders speaking up to

defend human rights of people in gaza during this situation. that has come from official statements that tried to critique in that way people who are defending human rights and to compare them with far right you fascist protesters, for example. it is an outrageous comparison to make. it does not stop there. we have also seen very strong efforts on the part of government institutions, including local governments and state governments and the federal government and universities and employers and others, to punish people for daring to speak up criticizing the human rights violations that are happening were criticizing the u.s. role in these violations. i think what is most hopeful, amy, and where there is a glimmer of hope, which i have to say moved me very much, is that people are not allowing themselves to be intimidated by

these tactics. we've seen massive demonstrations in all parts of the country and in europe from people -- many time risking arrest, risking police beating, risking other consequences because they refuse to allow this to go forward and have the human rights claim be silenced. the most encouraging, just a few blocks from here a few days ago, we saw a large group jewish voices for peace, jewish protesters standing up and saying "not in our name" and taking over grand central station. in one move, stripping away the israeli propaganda point they're somehow acting in the defense of jews. jewish people are not represented by israel. these protesters made that perfectly clear. israel wishes an old anti-semitic trope that it somehow represents jewish people around the world. not only is that not factual, but it is very dangerous and

everyone needs to know israel is a state responsible for its own crimes and that responsibility does not extend to our jewish brothers and sisters, many of whom are standing up alongside muslim and christian and others in demonstrations across this country and across europe saying this must end. amy: i want to get your response to a comment in the guardian by who accused you of overt anti-semitism saying you used u.n. letterhead to call for wiping israel off the map. craig mokhiber, if you could respond? >> well, she is a well-known entity amongst human rights defenders. she has made a career of attacking anyone who dares to criticize israeli human rights violations in particular. i have responded to this idea of wiping israel off the map by saying i'm not looking to put in and to israel, but an end to

apartheid. it is very telling what she tweeted in her attack on me. she accused me of anti-semitism and the quote she took for my letter to prove that was my call for equal rights for christians, muslims, and jews. i had to reply to her tweet by saying she had become a parody of herself because of calling for equal rights for christians, muslims, and jews is a new form apprentices -- anti-semitism, there's no conversation to be had. i don't think people are falling for these smears anymore. there must automatic. the point needs to be made again and again criticism and human rights violations are not anti-semitic. just as criticism of myanmar is not anti-buddhist, criticism of indian violations is not anti-hindu. if any of those are true, then there is no international human rights framework. if only the case of israel is true, that is a racist proposition that only

palestinians can't have a human rights defended. i don't think anyone listens too much to those kinds of smears anymore. luckily, people are speaking up louder, not lowering their voices to demand human rights in the occupied territory. amy: what do you go off to do, craig mokhiber? you have been at the united nations for decades. talk about your plans now. today is your first day you are not working at the u.n. >> i intend to remain involved in international human rights, which i have been involved in since 1980. there is no question about that. i will do it under my own name, unconstrained by diplomatic protocol and the constraints of the u.n. i will continue to support my colleagues. u.n. and ensuring workers, human rights workers, the unwra colleagues, dozens of whom have lost their life in the last

couple of weeks under israeli bombing, absolutely heroic work all around the world. when i try to influence the political side of the house to take up a more realistic and principled approach to this particular conflict, one based in international human rights, humanitarian law, and one based in achievable goals if not in the immediate term of a paradigm based upon equality and end to apartheid and equal rights for christians, muslims, and jews. amy: i want to get you your final comment of the protesters in washington, d.c., disrupting antony blinken while he was testifying before the senate on president biden's request for 106 plane dollars of ukraine, israel, militarizing u.s.-mexico border. a group of protesters sitting behind lincoln held up their hands covered in fake blood. he was also interrupted by members of code pink, including the former state department

official ann wright who resigned over the iraq war. this is what she said. >> i am an army colonel, former diplomat, i resigned on that -- that was a terrible thing and what you're doing right now is abhorrent. [indiscernible] cease fire now! amy: she was holding a sign as she was taken out by secure to come "cease-fire in gaza." your final comments? >> this is where i find the most hope. i have lost confidence in official institutions of government after all these years . i am losing hope in international institutions. where there is hope, it is in civil society, those ordinary people here in the united states and elsewhere who are willing to stand up and demand respect for

human life and for human rights. these kinds of protests in the halls of congress, before the state department, in front of the white house, in grand central station, everywhere particularly with this climate that is trying to silence critique of these current policies, it is only going