the world court, they cannot write articles for or books or for journals, so when there's a serious issue like this, they want to think about it thoroughly and write a detailed decision with the basis for the decision almost as important as the decision itself, so the icj always takes months and months, sometimes years to reach an opinion, and if there are... different opinions, if each judge justice wants to write their own twist on the conclusion, it does take time, yes. okay, well kim, mean, is it difficult to determine if the zionist regime's occupation is illegal or not? yes, good evening to you, marcia and your guest has helpfully explained the situation, no, mean anyone watching the case, you don't have to be. a lawyer to

understand what that this is an open and shut case, i mean, i mean, i would refer people to the uh presentations of the lawyer for the arab league, who was a formidable guy who really clarifies everything legally from the beginning to now, and that shows you that this is an open and shut case, doesn't need that much time, especially in light of the current urgency that is taking place in gaza itself, where at least 500 people are are being killed a day, and mostly women and children, and that... is really disgusting, it's extermination of people, we said years ago, never again, never again must surely mean in relation to all humans, not just some humans, not others, and so i don't understand, i mean i can accept that they need the time, i can accept that they have they are required by by law and and morally required to give reasoning for their judgments and i expect them to be reviewing the written submissions of all the countries and organizations. again to make sure that

whatever reasoning they give is based on evidence and legal arguments presented to them rather than their own personal opinions, so yes, to that extent i can see why they need six months, but from an ordinary play person's perspective, this shouldn't take a long time, it's an open and shut case, you don't have to be a lawyer to see that there is immediate urgency that requires immediate decision rather than prolonged uh taking time, at least make an interim order, at least make an interim order. but in relation to the opinion, i expect it to uh take as long as they had stated because of the reasons i have just explained and your uh our colleague over there, jonathan explained to you as well. okay, well jonathan, there are some experts who believe that these moves by the icj is attempt by the court to exert more sovereignty and move away from american hegem. how do you see it? well, uh, in a way,

"this case together with the other case before the icj is a challenge to international law itself, to the system of laws that has been created mostly at the end of world war ii, which has been failing the majority of the population of this planet. initially international law was created largely by european and american and western countries to..." regulate the world in a certain way, now people in the south, people in the third world, developing countries that are saying, okay, if international law is to be followed, it needs to address our needs, not just the needs of the powerful, and and occupation is one of these issues, occupation was to be a temporary state of affairs, where some people... wherever there's a war and

some population falls under the occupation of the army of another country, it's supposed to be a temporary state of affair until peace comes and you restore the situation to the way it used to be before. now this occupation has been taking place for more than 50 years, and not only that, but israel has not been following the geneva conventions and the hag conventions. relating to protection of civilians under under occupation, so some scholars started saying, well this is no longer belligerant occupation, this is actually itself an illegal occupation, this is not just a temporary thing that happened at the end of war, it's now becoming a permanent feature with no end in sight, that looks more like annexation, that looks more like control and rather than a temporary

belligerent occupation, that is why the case was brought, please explain to us what is this strange status is? the occupation itself has it become illegal because it's been for so long and because of the practices of israel during the occupation has rendered this no longer belligerant occupation and a temporary state of affairs but an actual de facto annexation. we can there are other experts who point out that the whole liberal system of which these international organizations are part of were creat. to protect us hajamani and that's what they continue to do. your thoughts on that side of things? well, indeed, it is very hard to rebut that suggestion in light of what we have seen going on over the years since the creation of the un to date. we haven't seen the security council for example being used

as as a as a platform for promotion of peace. we've seen it being used as a platform for warmongering and lots of wars have taken place, illegal wars all be it. them and lots of genocides have been committed and the security council has been dominated by what i term the bully boys i as i previously said and you know who they are and uh it is difficult to rebut the suggestion that this is about enabling the us regime to act as like empire to the world and therefore the rest of the world is just mere uh colonies of the us empire that can surely be right because you see the secret counsel itself is on power is an organ of the un institution as a whole, on par with with the court, on par with with the human rights council, therefore it can't see itself as above all on the basis of of uh the the the uh ownership of nuclear weapons by certain states, you see, because

if we say that we accept that argument then we're saying that we live in the jungle, and this is the rule of the jungle, might is right, and the rest of the world is just mere colonies of this mighty. uh uh regime that needs to be followed and that can't be right because this regime is actually the us regime is rogue regime quite frankly because it does not comply with any rule of law, it it seems to uh regard itself above all and above everything and humans and everything and and aiding and abeting genocide in in in gaza and uh elsewhere illegal wars in iraq and elsewhere you know we can't accept this uh situation to continue. because the world contains more than one country, there are 193 countries, member states of the un itself, and all these countries are now waking up to the reality that they are being treated as mere colonial slaves, some countries are still paying colonial taxes apparently, and

that's completely shocking to the core, and uh, there is an awakening taking place in the world, and i feel that, i feel that through the proceedings of the icj, as we have been watching up to the... to today as well as the uh upcoming uh case of the uh south african uh state that uh is against genocide. now under that case once the court ruled that there is a primer facy case to hunster against the charge of genocide, it is incumbant up upon every country in the world, in fact they are under a duty to act and very quickly to prevent and stop this genocide, but where are they? so yes uh the the suggestion that that that this "whole system has been kind of set up to uh empower and enable the uh rogue regime to to uh take control of the world, it's difficult to rebut seeing what has been happening over the years for the past 70 years that pull out the time that the un has been in existence, and one more point which is quite shocking to know

perhaps for some people is this that um when the uh statute of rome came into existence and uh the uh court in hague was established. for for for uh enforcement of the principles of and rules of the treaty of rome, they apparently the us has passed a law that enables that that demands or enables it to invade holland in case anybody from the us is ever brought to justice there for war crimes and crimes against humanity or or genocide, so it is considering or treating itself above the law, above humanity, above everything, that can surely be right, we're all equal, we're all here. look at the charter, as the charter speaks about equality, the charter speaks about inalienable right to self-determination for peoples, why is this being denied to everybody? that's just ridiculous, can't be sustained, this position cannot be sustained, it's not tenable, that's what i'm saying, right? well, that was

interesting your point you made just now, kim, what about that, jonathan, because yes, if we read, so many of the charters, whether we're talking about the international court of justice, are you talking about the united? nations and so many of the other agencies that come under united nations, beautifully worded talking about equality, but the reality is that we really have never seen that um since 19. 45, of course, when most of these were established after world war ii, so at this point in time, do you think that the ruling of the icj is really going to make a difference, can it make a difference, because at the end of the day it's also non-binding? yes, i think it can make a big difference, the the question is, how do other people react to it, if you remember one of the first uh non-binding advisory opinion was in the

case of namibia, where the occupation of namibia by south africa, they couldn't stop that occupation, they tried to go through the security council, of course the veto by england and the united states prevented it, so the general assembly asked the icj for an advisory opinion. and that advisory opinion was that the occupation was illegal and that it is the duty of all states to bring an end to that illegal occupation, as a result there was an international movement to boycott south africa and corporations stopped dealing with south africa, sports events stopped allowing south african teams to play, and and there was... an international pressure that in the end led to the independence of namibia

and later to the end of the apartide regime in south africa itself, so the question is not just what is the opinion of the icj, but what is the reaction of the governments and the people of the world to that opinion? i'd like to explain even even regular courts, national... courts don't have at their disposal enforcement mechanisms, the enforcement is largely voluntary, it has moral authority and everybody is supposed to follow it, and anybody who refuses to follow the decisions of the court, it becomes something of an outlaw or a person who tries to be outside of what the society and the community. once, so in a in a real way, the decision of the icj is as powerful as is the

political will of governments and people to uh abide by it. okay, well that's an interesting point. let me just start right there with kim. so uh, just according to what jonathan is saying then, um, so it is as important as the governments that will abide by it, but we... have seen over the years and even now we're watching what is happening uh with the united states and the uk and some of the other uh french uh other western countries that are also hand in hand in this genocide, so we have seen that time and time again those who wanted to stand up against these entities were sanctioned, punished, something had happened to them, so in general, do you think that we're at the point because of this unbelievable genocide and... what is taking place? that the countries of the world, kim are really willing to stand up

against the united states, against the western hijamany, against the israeli regime, and the consequences that come with that. i i believe that is the case, i can feel it, i can see there is movement of of saying enough is enough, mean i have listened to the presentations made by the colombian state which was amazing. the state and many other states and even turkey and it's it's amazing to see that that that in the first place that these countries got together and made this application to to to explore and debate this this issue was to the occupation whether it is legal or not and it turns out that it's actually not legal the occupation from the beginning from b for declaration is illegal ab inissue illegal and therefore every action taken thereafter. is also illegal and so there so many crimes have been committed, so to see these countries and and and of course

uh indonesian uh state also made a very compelling representation and to see all these countries getting together and and the the sanctions not working in in in as much as it used to many years ago, and also there are alternative economic scenes in the world platform today that are showing themselves to be credible forces to reckon with, i'm talking about bricks, i'm talking about... many other amazing movements taking place, the african union, and many countries are waking up to the reality that they cannot allow the status quo to continue as it is, because it means effectively they... are all being enslaved by uh one set of triad, i call them the dark triad, the dark triad in slaving the rest of the world, because it's what they're doing is purely colonialism, and the rest of the world is beginning to wake up to this and say, enough is enough, i feel that there is a change taken place, because you see, in some places you're not even allowed to say uh, from the river to the sea,

which is a statement which is contained in the the constitution of the liquid party, self, but if you say it as as a non israeli person, you will be accused of being anti-samite, even if you're an arab like me, i'm a samite myself, so you'll be accused of being anti-samite, and but having said that, to see that the these all these countries getting together, making this application, to see south africa being moved by what's going on, making the application it made, i think we can start to feel that there is movement of change taking place, and what we need to do is support that. movement of change and perhaps even encourage our own countries to see the common sense of uh supporting such movement of of treating human beings as equal rather than holding racist colonialist mindset in relation to this to the rest of the world that can't continue that can't be right, it's actually a stigma and anathema on

our reputation as a country ourselves here in the uk with with the history of slavery with colonialism you know cases of them is still coming up, people being raped with the raped with a broken beer bottles and that kind of thing, the shame is still there, let's not continue building more shame on us, that's what i'm trying to say, and i feel that there is movement in the world that that is is awakening as is that saying enough is enough? okay, jonathan, do you agree with kim, and and in general, do you think that these hearings are indicative of a change globally and how countries is starting to see the israeli regime? yes, i think it is true, and a large part of it is because the israelis are not hiding what they're doing. the holocaust that took place in germany took place in the dark. people didn't even know until after the war about the horrors of what the nazis were doing to the jews. here it is

open, you see it on the social media, you see it on television screens, there's only. one place where you don't see it very well and that's in israel where they don't show that on on on on their screens and in the united states of course the media is also biased but this is a reality that people are seeing and that the israelis are not hiding themselves, they are open about what they are doing, and this is going to lead to lot of changes in the world. you must understand that international law itself, developed a large degree as a result of ordinary people being fed up with the horrors of world war two and feeling the need to do something to create new order where it's not just the powerful can do whatever they want and in a in a real way uh it it has worked for most world the

idea of taking over somebody else's country next to you because you had historic rights over it or because you have security interest, well jonathan, sorry to interrupt you here, has it worked? mean, you say in reality, okay, this came about after world war ii, because of need for something better, has it work or has it been unfair from the very beginning? we see which countries were, for example, with the international court of justice, which countries have been accused, which countries have not, which countries have actually... committed unbelievable crimes uh since world war ii um, but no one dared to uh basically either tried them or no one actually paid the price for their crimes, so so has it work or was it in uh based on in in inequality from the very beginning. it hasn't worked on all cases, it hasn't worked

all the time, but it has largely worked. let me explain why, let me explain why. okay. if you look at the larger historical picture, between 1948 and today, there have only been about four or five cases where a country tried to expand its borders and anex nearby countries, one of them was iraq in kuwait, another was western sahara, another was the ukraine, and and another is israel, annexing the goal and... and annexing east jerusalem and trying to annex, but that's you know like very few out of the 1944 countries, many of which have disputes with their neighbors. "and they they find different ways of dealing with it rather than just capturing their neighbors country or portions of it to

fulfill, so i agree with you, it hasn't always worked, and certainly the veto power uh at the security council has prevented the implementation an objective way across the board, but this is where the population" "if the governments don't work, the ordinary population can influence things through things like bds. okay, okay, john, i'm just about out of time, but kim, final thoughts, go ahead please, well, yeah, i mean, we do run into enforcement, and there is a need for international campaign to enforce, enforce the rule of law, and that that means the campaign must be increased in intensity." these countries that made the application at the icj for the opinion to uh also apply immediate sanctions against the criminal

regime as the yemeny state has done in sanha, the parliament has passed sanctions against the rogue regimes and its personnel and also it's enforcing the rules by imposing economic sanctions on israeli bound ships by the way there are thousands of ships passing and and un unhindered, only israeli, uk and us are being uh obstructed simply because they are aiding at a betting and committing genocide and that's a very serious crime and the state of yemen takes that very seriously and in compliance w by the way yemen was one of the very first members of the uh un when it was established the rule of law we are out of time i thank you both for being uh with us john international lawyer out of lancaster pennsylvania kim shetty factor. and lawyer out of london and thank you viewers for being with us on another spotlight, hope to see you right here next time, goodbye, thank you.

as hundreds of people have marked.

the voice of the voiceless. press tv. today in the studio we are joined by one of the members of the political bureau of the palestinian islamic. jihad movement, ali abu shahin. since the israeli aggression, there has been no safe place in gaza. the world today is saying enough is enough. the american administration is a part of this aggression under the pretext of slogans of democracy and confronting dictatorship.

you're press of your headlines: israely forces kill scores, more palestinians in gaza, including people waiting for aid as the regimes. genocide enters its 144th day. meanwhile, hamas says that israel is stalling seizfire talks and using negotiations as cover to continue its war of starvation against the people of gaza. and the un chief warns israel's invasion of rafa will put final nail in the coffin of aid programs for the gaza's trip.