Debate on genocide Natasha Hausdorff & Christian Vigilius v Annette Rimmer & Trine Mach

Welcome. Good evening everyone. Uh or good afternoon. Say good afternoon. Uh on behalf of Ken House, the Nordic Jewish Network and the Danish youth organization. Uh I want to warmly welcome you and thank you for being here tonight. It's truly encouraging to see so many gathered for real conversation, especially in the midst of a tragic war that has taken far too many lives and Cause deep pain on all sides. In times like this, uh when nuance is often lost and opinions are quickly dismissed, um creating space for thoughtful conversation and respectful dialogue is more important

than ever. Kus and cause was founded in Oslo eight years ago in response to exactly this trend where important conversations particularly around Jewish identities or anti-semitisms were being shut down rather than opened up since then we've Been creating spaces for dialogue debate complexity we're a member-based organization everybody can become a member organization even you in Denmark and uh by doing that you can uh get involved in our work and we can make many more debates like this. Every uh ideas uh are welcomed. Big thank you to our panelists for being here. It's amazing. Big thank

you to the Jewish youth, to the party and To for putting all this together. Um and uh if you have questions after us, we'll have time for questions, right? Martin, let's see. Yes, we should have. We were It's all about this dialogue and conversation. So, uh we'll we'll organize that for the end. You just raise your hand. Uh if you want to be anonymous, you can go to our website kencows.org and you'll find a questionnaire that you can write and I'll get the message to my email and I'll forward it to you. Good luck and

lock yourself out. Great. Uh thank you very much. Um the the debate uh tonight uh is about uh one of the most serious allegations in international law, the question of genocide in the context of the ongoing war in Gaza. And uh as you know this is a subject that commands global attention, sparks profound emotion and raises challenges, legal challenges, Moral and political questions. Um the allegation of genocide comes in the wake of Israel's military operations and war in Gaza launched after the terror attacks in 2003 2023. uh as you know uh and uh and it

was made very concrete not just from demonstrations and chancing and shouting but by South Africa bringing the case before the international court of justice in January 2024 accusing Israel of commit committing acts of genocide against the Palestinian people and South Africa alleges that the scale of civilian casualties the destruction of homes and infrastructure and statements by Israeli officials amount to genocidal intent. Israel strongly rejects these allegations, as you know, arguing that its actions are aimed at dismantling Hamas, the group that has committed acts of terror and and is using civilian Areas for military purposes. Israel

maintains that it operates within the bounds of international law and so on. The ICJ has issued provisional measures calling on Israel to prevent acts of genocide and to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza, but it has not yet ruled on whether genocide has actually occurred. This is what we're going to discuss. My name is Martin Kik. I'm normally very engaged in this debate. Today I'm the moderator. Some of you might be relieved Uh that this is the case, but I I I'm glad to be the moderator. I do think that uh this is a very very

important debate and also uh uh uh uh in this situation this is a really really rare and much needed uh thing. The topic is difficult. It's difficult to discuss. It's politically charged. It has a lot of emotions uh involved. uh and and to my knowledge there hasn't been an event like this in Copen Payton for the last almost one and a half years where really Engaging the opposite uh opinion. So thank you very very much for taking part in it is extremely important uh and it's it's equally important to engage in this openly honestly and

with mutual uh mutual uh respect. The idea here is not to agree on everything uh but to create a space where people probably hopefully will go home more clever and uh uh and uh more enlightened. We have a very as you can see distinguished panel here uh today Uh on the far uh left not in a polit in any political term uh and then took care policy advisor at Amist International Denmark and as you know Amnesty International in December last year concluded that Israel is actually committing genocide in Gaza. Welcome to you summak member of

of of parliament for the social people's party SF the spokesperson why did I say that is listen uh sorry sorry about That and but as most person on international relations and and also also claim exactly claim that Israel is actually committing genocide. Thank you for commenting. Natasha House, a barristister and director at UK lawyers for Israel, specializes in international law and security policy and also is known for a strong defense on Israel's legal positions. Christians is a former chairman of the Conservative Youth Party. Young Conservatives. Yeah. Yeah. Young Conservatives. Uh a student here in this

place. Good for you. and then also a candidate for the for for for uh for for for the parliament. Uh at first each of you will have five minutes to present your your opening uh remarks. Uh and please go ahead. Can you all hear me or should I have a microphone? Uh you should have a microphone. All right. Thank you very much for inviting me and for inviting Amnesty International for this debate. I work as a policy adviser in Amnesty International Denmark and I represent the world's largest human rights organization with among 10 million members

globally and our mandate in Amnesty is to document violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. We use this documentation to hold perpetrators accountable and thereby seeking justice for Victims. One of the most important principles for us is universality, meaning that the law should be applied equally to all parties. And as Martin Kasnik said in December 2024 last year, Amnesty International published a detailed analysis and report concluding that Israel is been and is still committing genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza. And the conclusion is based on intensive investigation by My colleagues into Israel's conduct since

the 7th of October 2023 until July 2024. and in death legal analysis of previous decisions by international courts on exactly uh genocide. And we do not come to this conclusion lightly or for any political reasons. We studied Israel's governments and military actions in Gaza closely and in their totality. And for us, the conclusion is quite clear. Israel has Committed three out of the five acts that is prohibated under the genocide convention. Killings causing serious bodily or mental harm and deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of a group. But the

existence of those acts alone uh is not sufficient to meet the genocide threshold. These acts should be done with the intent to destroy a group in whole or in part. We have therefore Analyzed more than 100 statements by Israeli government officials, high-ranking military officers and members of Ignit and we found the repeated use of dehumanizing language. We found statements calling for a genocidal act and other crimes under international law. We verify videos of soldiers replicating those narratives, calling for the erasia of Gaza or to make return the inhabitable, celebrating the destruction Of Palestinian homes, mosque,

schools, and university by Israeli soldiers. And I now want to use my five minutes to go a bit more detail about why we and how we came to this conclusion. So first on killings and serious bodily injuries injuries to determine whether Israel has carried out these prohibited acts, we focused on investigations that we have conducted into 15 air strikes that took place in Gaza between October 2023 and April 2024. Our research found that all Of these air strikes were either direct attacks on civilians or civilians uh civilian objects or indiscriminate attacks. And these 15 air

strikes alone killed at least 334 people including at least 141 children and wounded hundreds of others. And in all but one case, Israel gave no warning uh before carrying out the attack. And in the last case, although Israel did give a warning, it Was not effective. In all of these attacks, did we find evidence that there was any legitimate military objective in or near the location that was struck? And one example is an Israeli attack in April last year on El Magazi refugee camp in central Gaza that killed 15 civilians, including 10 children. And this

malaysian landed in the middle of a market street where children were playing around a football table. We reviewed four videos and 22 Photographs taken by journalists and residents living in that area and also taken at the scene by our own field workers. And damage from the weapon, the fragments is visible on the foot wall table on nearby vehicles and on the walls of surrounding houses and shops. The pattern of damage at the scene and the electronic components in the recovery fragments match that of a small precisiong guided missile and glide bombs that would launch was

launched by Israeli drones. And responding in an interview in the CNN, the Israeli military initially said it struck a terror target in Masi but declined to provide any additional details of this event. They later shift their response saying that they had no record of the strike. The Israeli military also declined to answer questions regarding the nature of the target or whether any fighters were killed. And these 15 air strikes that we Documented um are just a few of the actions that or attacks that taking place um throughout the last 19 months. Now view in isolation.

Maybe you could argue that some of these attacks were reckless or careless. But when you view them cumulatively over the course of nine um months that we did, the fact that Israel repeated such deadly attacks on homes, civilian homes and other buildings and still continues to do so Today in densely populated areas with large explosive weapons and often at times where people would be at home sleeping during night without any effective or any advanced warning indicates deliberateness. And to claim that all of these attacks bomb by one of the most technology advanced militaries in the

world that they are mistakes is highly unlikely. Our conclusion is that these attacks cause deliberate and unlawful Death and injuries to Palestinian civilians. They constitute the probed acts of killing members of the group and causing serious bodily and mental harm to members of the group. And then to determine whether Israel depict the conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of Palestinians, we assessed Israel's role in three patterns of events in Gaza. Firstly, massive damage and destruction of objects indispensable to the survival Of civilian population. And second, the repeated mass force displacement of the

vast majority of Gaza's population under inhumane conditions. And thirdly, the obstruction and denial of the delivery of essential services. and life-saving supplies um into Gaza. After October 2023, the majority of homes in Gaza were damaged and destroyed at unprecedented scale and speed. Gaza's once vibrant domestic agricultural sector, which actually meant a Significant portion of people's nutritional needs before all of this was quickly decimated. And we documented how the Israeli military destroyed large tracks of agricultural land and thousands of homes and other structures along Gaza's eastern perimeter as part of its effort to expand the buffer

zone. One minute. Oh, okay. Need to be quick. Um, and finally, along with mass destruction and the mass forced Placement that we've seen, the Israeli authorities, they denied and obstructed the delivery of essential services. And as you are all probably aware of, you're right now witnessing a blockade of aids in 2nd of March that has left everyone in Gaza hungry and almost 500,000 people in risk of dying from hunger. Finally, um before passing the floor to one of my co-panelists, I want to explain how we uh came to the conclusion of Intent. It is important

to first of all understand the context of this. What we seeing in Gaza right now is occurring in the context of Israel's apathy system um which subjects all Palestinians within Israel and the occupied Palestinian Palestinian territory to an institutionalized regime of oppression and it is occurring in the context of an 18-year-old unlawful blockade of Gaza and this demonstrates already pre-existing attitude towards Palestinians within Within weeks of Israel's government's offensive into Gaza, UN special appetas and members of UN working groups, the UN committee on elimination of racial discrimination as well as international civil society organizations raise

concerns that the language that is being used dehumanize Palestinians and make them at grave risk of genocide. And this was also taken into cons consideration in ITJ's provisional measures in January Last year. So I want to finish by saying that now it is time for us to use the right words, use the right language that we already have, describe what's going on in Gaza. And we believe is Gaza. We believe it's genocide. And we believe that it is now that we all have to acknowledge this and stop it. Thank you. Thank you very much. So,

it takes a British lawyer and a Norwegian NGO to get an open conversation in Denmark on This topic. That's really interesting. But, uh, thank you very much for inviting me. So I'm a politician. Uh so I'm not making any legal conclusions on or or anything. I'm not judging. I'm basing the politics that I suggest on reports, documentations that others are doing. NOS's, the UN system, journalists, so on and so forth. Um the fundamental thing here and the fundamental question to me is that we Have international law. It applies to all actors without exception. Nobody can

say I'm without outside of that system. You can judge others who cannot judge me. They go for everyone all parties in a conflict no matter where no matter when. And as a very small country in the world, we are completely dependent on that system, on the rules based order, on international conventions, on international laws, on agreements on how To wage war, how to regulate. We are completely dependent on that as a small state. Otherwise, we'll be dominated by big powers and their power play. And alongside with that, we are completely dependent on strong international institutions.

whether that would be multilateral institutions or legal institutions such as the international court of justice and the ICC. So as a small country and as a Politician in a small country I feel very obliged to argue that because we are ourselves the first to lose if that system falls apart. And I think we're at a very critical point in time in international history where this system is under attack from a lot of different sides. We have seen Russia being very aggressive for a very long time. We see the US and we also see Israel attacking

that system and many others. So just to mention Three, the situation in Gaza is not just a humanitarian catastrophe. It's a man-made humanitarian catastrophe and that's why it takes up such much so much time and attention also in Danish politics. When we look at the reports coming out the documentation coming out of Gaza including Amnesty but also a lot others a lot of others we see human destruction to a scale we haven't witnessed for many many years. We see what seems to be deliberate attacks on the humanitarian actors, indiscriminate killings, destruction of civilian housing, mosques,

churches, infrastructure and attacks on journalists. So on these very many dimensions whereby we usually judge warfare we see the way Israel is waging it war on the wrong side of that set of regulations. Many many uh institutions Have been documenting that coming to different conclusions. Some do not conclude. They just share the documentation, the statistic statistics on the very many thousand people being killed. And then we have organizations actually drawing conclusions based on evidence they've been gathering for a very long time. And in this specific conflict, it's it's very great move to to to make,

I would have to say. Um, so how does a Politician like myself act on all that knowledge? Well, I think as I said, Denmark as a very small country being very dependent on that international system, we have to speak up when we see it being under attack. And I think we also have an obligation to act. Denmark has signed the convention on genocide which obliges us to act to prevent a genocide from happening. and the fact that there is now a court case that hasn't come to any Conclusions, but there is a court case at

the International Court of Justice that relates to a potential genocide in Palestine. I think Denmark and other countries in the world would have to act on that. Not because we conclude because it's not politicians job to be conclusive on this but because we have to live up to our Obligations of prevention and we can only prevent something from happening if we act in due time and that due time is now. So, I have spent the last 20 months uh raising questions to the Danish government uh calling ministers into uh committee meetings to answer why we

continue to export weapons, why we continue to have the association agreement at EU level, bilateral trade with Israel, how the Danish government will act in the UN Security Council, so on and so forth. because I think we have a self-interest in it but also because we have an obligation to stand up for human rights and international law when we see it completely under attack. Now that would be my conclusion. What we have is not a long list of conclusions but we have dire reports documenting what they have been finding. amnesty or genocide, UN resorts, other

humanitarian Organizations and of course government collective punishment uh using hunger as a weapon against a whole people chokes are ethnic cleansing and the whole lot. So for me as a politician I think it's completely in due time to act on that knowledge and that is what I think politicians should be doing because no state in this world can be left outside that system of regulation. All states have To follow regulations on war, international humanitarian law, international conventions and so on. And we have to act now before it's too late because we have an obligation to

prevent. And that's why I think acting on the language that does exist using the structures and the systems and the institutions that we do have brings me to a conclusion also to use the language of genocide and the genocide of War in Gaza because I think we have to use the language that is the conclusion from the actions that we see. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, good evening. Thank you very much for the invitation to appear before you and I am very happy to have come all the way from the United Kingdom to participate in

what has unfortunately become an extremely into extremely important topic to address. The fact that we are all here to discuss This heenous cannard of genocide against the Jewish state is a very problematic thing. We meet unfortunately in serious and tragic times, but they are times that have been concretely contributed to by the weaponization of key concepts in international law, genocide included. unfortunately by civil society as well as politicians and organizations like Amnesty International. The U uh the NGO NGO monitor in responding to this outrageous false report put out in December commented that Amnesty consistently uses

false and manipulative claims as well as lawfare to shield Hamas and demonize Israel. And uh only in March 2022, Amnesty USA director Paul O'Brien said at an event, "We are opposed to the idea, and this I think is an existential part of the debate, that Israel should be preserved as a state for the Jewish people." that has been at the core of the activity that we have seen for many many years from Amnesty International, Oxfam who I believe is also represented in some capacity this evening and many other NOS's that were set up with lofty

ideals and ambitions to preserve international law and to fight injustice wherever it appears. These organizations are now at the core of spreading misinformation and blood parles against the Jewish state. And I want to pick up on just two uh aspects of what the first speaker commented on. The first was uh to ensure she said that Law is applied equally to all parties. Well, this is something that even in its report amnesty clearly does not hold to when it seeks to rewrite the definition of genocide. And I shall come back to that I hope in due

course in my remarks. But the other uh comment that was made is that this report consisted of detailed investigations. And I just want to pick up on the method methodology of this report which is perhaps hidden in the Small printed so that you understand how it is that Amnesty International communicates to us that it has collected this information. Amnesty International also spoke with members of local authorities in Gaza. who are those local authorities. In other words, Amnesty International obtained information for its report from Hamas. It also indicated that it had received input uh from another

Palestinian terrorist Organization, the Palestinian uh the PFLP. It is quite shocking that this is what the report has been predicated on when one considers the prior reputation of Amnesty International. But when one looks at what this report is geared at, which is support for Hamas, those pieces very much appear to fall into place. Now I would be here all afternoon slash evening if I were to go through chaps and burst of the falsehoods that are contained in this report. But I Appreciate our opening statements are time limited. So I will uh reserve myself simply uh

to a few including these conclusions that Anthony Amnesty International drew that he did not mind any evidence that any of the strikes were directed at military objectives because that has been repeated to you this evening. Let me tell you ladies and gentlemen, international law does not work on the basis of the effectsbased analysis that Was suggested to you by the last speaker. Clearly, I'm afraid that demonstrates a lack of understanding about how international law as a whole, but international humanitarian law in particular operates. It is not effects based. It is intentionbased. So unless Amnesty International

instead of taking their doctrine of Hamas had access to the intelligence that Israel has operated on in each and every one of these strikes, it is in no position to Make the assessments that it purports to make. Quite the contrary. and in fact the entities with whom Israel has shared this information sensitive intelligence that have informed Israel's proportionality analysis which is critical to a proper application of international humanitarian law. Those countries have consistently said they do not have concerns with breaches of international humanitarian law by Israel so far as proportionality and targeting Is concerned. And

with good reason because the Israeli Defense Forces consistently go over and above the requirements of international law. And honest military experts and legal ones have been frank about that because of the practices that Israel has put into place. the proportionality analysis, the choice of munitions, the development of smart munitions, the targeting of buildings from particular angles to prevent fallout and collateral damage, The use of warnings which institutes the precaution principle of IHL warnings the fact that this same report criticizes. You see, Israel is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't. on the one

hand is accused of indiscriminately killing civilians but on the other when Israel seeks to evacuate those civilians the allegation is that of force displacement it is ludicrous ladies and gentlemen but that is on the basis of the false representations about law more broadly Let's deal with this blood label of genocide which comes off the back of the previous inversions of international legal terminology occupation ethnic cleansing colonialism apartheite that was also subject to an entirely false report by Amnesty International. This concept of genocide is the most heinous of false allegations against the Jewish people and undoubtedly

we have seen the consequences that these blood liables Lead to the execution of two Israeli staff members in DC. I do not say lightly that these organizations have blood on their hands promoting these falsehoods against the Jewish state. But why is the falsehood of genocide so he term was coined by Raphael Lenin to provide legal terminology to the Jewish experience. The experience of the Holocaust of being targeted for extermination because they were Jews. that was Unique in that period of time. Subsequently, of course, we have seen it again, the acts of the 7th of October,

acts of genocide committed by Hamas with the intention of killing Jews. And that is the key element that Amnesty and others brush over when they seek to rewrite the law on the internationally defined crime of genocide because intention is critical to it. intention to eradicate a group in whole or in part. That is the specific intent that Is brushed over. This is a racial, ethnic, religious uh or national group. And that intention they argue now can be otherwise implied. Doesn't need to be a specific intent where it is the only reasonable inference. That's the case

law on the subject that was universally accepted until Amnesty tried to write rewrite the law with this report. Why is it so important that this crime of crimes be focused so specifically on the Intention to eradicate a group? Because it is so serious, because it is recognized as so heinous to seek to exterminate a people because of who they are. All of the evidence in this case, and the fact that we're even having this conversation is is truly diabolical to me, but here we are. All of the evidence in this case points in totally the

opposite direction. the aid that has been facilitated into the Gaza Strip. Despite what you just heard, 25,200 A trucks carrying 447,538 tons of aid were facilitated into the Gaza Strip during the hostage release deal. That meant that there should have been 5 to 6 months of aid since the end of the ceasefire. You heard evidence put before you that people in Gaza were hungry. Where has that aid gone? Ladies and gentlemen, why are Amnesty International and other organizations not asking these important questions? Because if Hamas Has been diverting this and preventing it from getting to

the Palestinian civilians of Gaza, this is where their work should be done. Instead, in advancing this heinous blood of genocide against the Jewish people, they ignore the measures that Israel has taken to prevent civilian casualties. They ignore the aid that has been facilitated in and instead they keep to their tried and tested method of seeking to delegitimize Israel at every opportunity and spread This false information. And yes, it has now become common parliament. It has, in the words of my counterpart on South African television just after the first provisional measures order, now it has finally

become acceptable to use Israel and genocide in the same sentence. That is not a reflection of reality. That is not a reflection of the facts. That is a ref reflection of the hea blood levels and how they have been filtered through the international legal order by Organizations pursuing this agenda against Israel. And I'm glad for the opportunity this evening of finally being able to put to bed this allegation and serious misinformation. Well, first of all, thank you very much for for having me. It's an honor to be a part of this important discussion. And I

also want to thank the organizers for clearly underlining the need for a respectful, open-minded and balanced Dialogue. That is unfortunately far too rare when we talk about Israel and Palestine, which is understandable given how emotionally charged this conflict is. But that makes it all the more important to keep a cool head and engage in good faith across political divides. I'll be speaking today from a political, moral, and legal perspective. I'm obviously not a professor of international law, but I've studied the subject closely, and I care deeply about It. Let me also say clearly, I fundamentally

sympathize with Israel, not because of any ethnic or familial ties, but because I'm a Christian and feel a personal connection to the land. Because I believe that Jewish people have a right to a state where they can live in safety and peace and because Israel despite of its flaws is the only fun functioning liberal democracy in the region. And frankly, I believe most people in the Middle East would live Better lives on a political system like Israel's. That doesn't mean that Israeli lies are more worth than Palestinian ones, but their way of life is worth

defending. And now, let me be very clear. What happened on October the 7th in 2023 was an atrocity, a terrorist massacre of innocent civilians, rape, mutilation, kidnappings, acts that should horrify any decent human being. and nothing absolutely nothing can justify that. I Completely reject the idea that this was a resistance operation. It was barbarism and has to be condemned. So yes, I believe Israel's military response, including its aim to dismantle Hamas, is legitimate. All the hostages are still not returned. As long as Hamas remains in power, Israel cannot live in peace. And although no recent

election has been held, opinion polls over the years have shown significant support for Hamas in parts of the Palestinian territories. That is why the separation between the Palestinian people and Hamas isn't always as clearcut as some would like to suggest. Hamas hides behind civilians in tunnels, schools, hospitals because they know that Israel operates by a different standard. They know Israel tries to follow international law and they exploit that. At the same time, the civilian casualties in Gaza are shocking. Estimates range from 30,000 to over 50,000. And even if some were harassed fighters, and undoubtedly there

will be, that is still a devastating number of innocent lives lost. Morally, we must hold two truths at once. One, Israel has a right to defend its citizens. And two, and every effort must be made to protect innocent Palestinians, children, women, and men with no times ties to Hamas. they deserve to Live. But now the central question is this a genocide. The term is used widely and was also used just before uh and is used widely in the international debate as well as in Denmark. But genocide is a very specific legal concept. Under the genocide

convention, two elements must be met. First, the actors re the objective acts, including killings or creating conditions that threaten a group's Survival. And that threshold may arguably have been met given the level of destruction and reports of block 8. But the second element is even more important, the so-called donor specialist, the specific intent to destroy in whole or in part a protected group as such. And that is incredibly hard to prove as the ICJ ruled in Bosnia versus Serbia. Even systematic atrocities are not enough without clear evidence of that intent. And in this Case, I

find it very unlikely that such intent can be demonstrated. Yes, there are some statements from Israeli officials that have been deeply problematic. by proving a state policy aimed at destroying the Palestinian people. That bar is incredibly high and rightly so. Without that, we dilute the meaning of genocide. More likely, what we're looking at may potentially be war crimes or crimes against humanity depending on proportionality, Distinction, and military necessity. And that is for the courts to decide. So to conclude, I don't believe what we are seeing quantifies as a genocide and I think it is unhelpful

and even dangerous to throw the word around. Israel's war against Hamas is legitimate, but it must be fought within the boundaries of international law and that I am total in agreement. The goal should not be to maximize punishment, but to maximize justice. And I think the international Community should pressure Hamas to release the hostages, something that is not mentioned often in this debate, but also pressure Israel to minimize civilian suffering. Because if we abandon law and morality entirely, we all lose. Thank you. Uh okay, let's Yeah. Okay. Um thank you very much all of you.

Um first of all, I would like we'll take a little round here uh with reactions uh From the panel and then questions from you. Uh first of all, let me just ask you um I mean and maybe I'll ask you first. Uh obviously you could look at what is happening in Gaza and be horrified and be against it and be very critical and confront it in any way you want. Why is it important for Amnesty International uh to to go into the debate about genocide? Why does it matter? We take this one. So, uh we

believe in Amnesty that it is important to document document all kind of violations of human rights and international humanitarian law and we don't have a hierarchy of violations. So we document war crimes, we document crimes against humanity, we document genocide where that happens and we document in many different conflict zones all over the world. We believe it's important for us to look closely at what's happening in Gaza because it's Out of proportion. And I want to say as well now that I heard your lot of criticism criticism from Natasha to our work that and it

shouldn't be you know I I think it's um problematic that I have to state this but of course what Hamas and other armed groups did the 7th of October 2023 was war crimes. Of course it was. You are not allowed under international humanitarian law to take hostage. You're Not allowed to directly attack civilians. And we have said this many times in Amnesty International. And we are investigating what happened the 7th of October as well. So put that aside. We are focusing especially on Gaza with the resource that we have because it is out of proportion

compared to what happened the 7th of October. Why is it important to establish? It's a legal term, J.L. Why is it important for Amnesty International to establish even Before it is it even before the court has has judged so that this is actually in fact genocide because the genocide convention was made to prevent also genocide from taking place. So we are obligated to act if we think there's a risk of this taking place and we have documented war crimes taking place in Gaza. We have documented crimes against humanity and now with the specific focus on

intent as I mentioned we have collected over 100 statements that is Dehumanizing the Palestinian population in Gaza. And uh we believe also um saying that um you know um describing it as deliberate destruction of the group as a whole and we have a obligation as civil civil society organization to use our resources to collect all this information that is available and to reach these legal analysis and make societies or make states uh prevent this from happening. So let's talk about a few of the issues That were mentioned uh in the opening statements. First of all,

the question of intent. All of you have been talking about this uh the question of intent linking statements from from uh different Israeli politicians uh officials to what is actually happening in in in Gaza. What what do you think if you look at it from a legal point of view is the problem of of the arguments that for instance am international gives us about intent. So The problem with reliance on the statements and this is also applicable to South Africa's submissions is that uh significantly they misrepresent what is being said. Uh these are statements from

senior members uh including of the government that have been talking about Hamas and the importance of destroying Hamas and to a point they are misrepresented as though these individuals are talking about destroying the Palestinian people. Even if that Were not the case, look at the actions which clearly demonstrate the complete opposite of what is being alleged. But this is um all deeply concerning. There's something that's just been said which I do feel I needed to pick up on and that is that what Israel is doing is out of all proportion to what happened on the

7th of October. That is so telling ladies and gentlemen. That is not how international law works and any organization or person reporting to Speak about international law should go back to the books and educate themselves. Proportionality in international law is clearly set out in the rules that govern armed conflict and it requires strikes to be proportionate when you take into account the anticipated military advantage against the anticipated collateral damage. That is a very gruesome analysis balancing that has to be conducted. But that is what the laws of armed conflict require. This grotesque outer proportion to

what happened on the 7th of October position that seeks to compare casualty figures on both sides not only encourages Hamas with their use of human shields but grossly misrepresents international law and suggests that Israel simply shouldn't be permitted to defend itself because there is no way that you can deal with Hamas by causing fewer casualty figures. And I just want to Pick up. I'm I'm hesitant to disagree with people on my side of the debate, but I do need to call out this reliance on Hamas casualty figures. The international media has been paring these figures,

as it parrots all of the news coming out of Gaza, which is controlled by Hamas. But these figures have been debunked. They have been based upon Hamas officials sending out Google documents to the population saying, "Insert your martyrs here." They've been Demonstrated to have been fabricated. And that's just the total figures before we get on to the women and children who are alleged to have been uh killed uh and also the pregnant children included in that. But the fact that these figures make no distinction between combatants and civilians or simply do not tell you how

these people are said to have died. Well, we know Hamas are shooting their own civilians. We also know that that civilians are killed because Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jan rockets fall short in Gaz are killing them indiscriminately because they don't fall subject to a proportionality analysis. So on every single level, it's just uh baffling and deeply concerning. Let's try to take one thing at the time. The question we're talking about intent and we also talk about the mythology in relying on on on Hamas. uh when when you how how how do you make sure or

how how do you build the bridge Between some as you also uh mentioned some statements by Israeli politicians and officials saying that Hamas should be destroyed or even something about some kind of collective responsibility which has also been said by some Israeli politicians to to establishing that there is to to to the intent of the state and with the military. I mean there is quite a leap there, right? What do you think? Yeah, I I just want to mention one thing that I haven't said Before as well that our conclusion in the report states that

it is not the there can be two objectives in Gaza for Israeli military. It can be to defeat Hamas, which is a legal target. is a military target and we know that that's legally um yeah that you can go after that legally under international humanitarian law. Uh but there can be another objective that could coexist align with defeating Hamas and we see that as being A genocide of the Palestinian population and the statements that we have looked into um uses a Palestinian as a whole and describes them as being human animals or human beasts. Uh

we have a statement saying that um Hamas can be everyone. It can be those who sing, those who support, and those who distribute sweets. Yeah. But but let me just ask you again, how how how what how do you make the connection between these Individual statements to the intent? Because we're talking about the intent of a state. I mean, this is the legal Yes. the the legal challenge. Yes. Uh how how would you conclude that this or that or the first statement is actually the amounts to the intent of Israel in this war? If we

have these intents uh being said by people in power in the Israeli government and also in the Israeli military and we see that it is trick Trickling down to people on the ground in Gaza in their military um celebrating the bombings of civilian houses as we have seen videos from IDF uh doing so um backing up by continued statements um saying that this is not just on us but it's all um Palestinians in Gaza that is seen as these beasts and animals. We see that as Yes. And and and and there have there have been

statements from even from ministers in the government saying quite disturbing things about collective Responsibility in Gaza. Well, the statements from those who have an input to policy have consistently been about Hamas. There are all sorts of people who especially after the 7th of October said all sorts of things. But as you correctly point out, I think that is not a reflection of Israeli policy. But may I just pick up on this? This is not what international law says about intent. This idea that there can be coexisting intents in the um uh international uh Criminal tribunal

for the former Yugoslavia, which I believe Christian was speaking to earlier. Uh it's clear that the genocidal intent must be the only reasonable inference. So what Amnesty have said in their report talking about dual or instrumental intent, they've actually invented this term. It doesn't exist. Um but now um artificial intelligence will tell you that it's applicable to genocide because of the Amnesty report. This is how International law gets rewritten. Ladies and gentlemen, this is completely made up. It goes against all of the uh ICJ, ICTY, ICTR, ICC case law. Only reasonable inference is standard. And

on that, open your eyes. Look at the Palestinian civilians in Gaza. The one thing I would say is that it is the international community that bears responsibility here for continued Palestinian suffering because there is a very simple solution to this which is What I have been calling for since October 2023. And that is that a Palestinian humanitarian zone be set up the other side of the border in Egypt in Egyptian ruffler where there is more space than you know what to do with where these Palestinian civilians could be provided for international aid to your heart's

content which critically is not diverted to Hamas and where Hamas are not able to abuse the humanitarian zones that Israel has set up in the Gaza Strip to continue to fire missiles onto Israeli civilians. That ladies and gentlemen would be the easy response. But I haven't heard amnesty calling for that. No, let's just please just answer this this criticism because we are following international justice interpretation. According to ICJ's case law establishes that the only reasonable inference from the pattern of conduct evidence must be that the intent To destroy a group is one of the state's

intentions. But the court has never held that the intent to destroy a group must be the state's only intention in a military campaign. That misinterpretation of the court's Jewish prudence is incompatible with the prohibition of genocide in times of war which is enshrined in article one of the genocide convention. And such a misinterpretation would make finding genocide and armed conflict effectively Impossible as armed conflict necessarily involves the pursuit of a military goal. And that's why we are seeing that there are these two coexistent objectives. So I I think I can see what's happening here. Um

the IC uh CTY made it clear that inflowing specific intent on the basis of facts and service of and circumstances uh must be based on the only reasonable inference based on the evidence. This insertion of dual or instrumental intent Is a rewriting of international law. But it it simply does not stand up against the facts. This is this unholy alliance of the misrepresentations of the law and the facts together which is what is being used to get over the threshold of this crime of genocide. But the I'm afraid that the consistent emphasis of all of

the case law has been that where there are other possible explanations uh and so where there are multiple analyses as to the intention the only Reasonable inference is the key test. Um and and here we don't even get to that because there is this enormous leap that is being sought to be made on the basis of the misinterpretation and misrepresentation of the statements alongside the misrepresentation of the actions. And it's the only way that this allegation can be put forward. So much so that Ireland has now also sought to intervene in the South Africa case

to tweak the definition of genocide because All of these people accept that on its face the definition of genocide could never apply to the armed conflict in Gaza. Very quick. Yeah. Because so that is your interpretation of international printer law Natasha and we have come to another from a very detailed large report that we made in Amnesty International with other legal scholars also reading it through before publicizing it and we have many other Scholars that are saying this is genocide. We have the UN saying that it seems that it could be that genocide and they

are already the UN has never said that the the ICJ the okay so there are other misrepresentations the report as to what the ICJ is so there's a the UN committee on Palestine that I said okay I'm I'm wondering what kind of documentation you're basing your interpretation on all of the consistent case law as I indicated of all of the Criminal tribunals as well as the ICC and it and the IC uh ICJ to the extent that the analysis of intent has been conducted. This is a new step and a and seeking to develop international

law in a way that it is is simply never been applied before. But I mean I really hope we'll get on to the other real problems in this report and the consistent misinformation and there are additional examples that I I want to ask you about them now. uh the question of one thing Is the intent the other thing is the consequences uh on on the ground uh civilian casualties and also you were talking about about the method methodology of the of the report when when you talk about proportional proportionality uh and the amount of casualties

in in Gaza civilian casualties we are you are mainly basing the numbers on on records from uh statements from from the health authorities of Gaza which are of course Controlled by Hamas. The criticism as you well know in that direction would be that you cannot trust that you don't know how many of these are civilians. You don't know how how many of these are Hamas militants and so on. So what do you think of the the problem of of uh reporting the numbers? I think it is a problem and it's also a problem that Israel

doesn't allow international observers and journalists to come in to Gaza and help us understand what is Happening. So that's part of the problem. I think with regards to the numbers there has been and it's not an agreement that you can actually more or less count from the numbers that do come out. The UN uses the numbers as well. It's not just something that I when you say international agreement there has been I don't recall which British newspaper it was but there was British newspaper saying that there has been international organizations looking At this uh looking

at how does armed conflict normally go with that type of warfare? how what are the casualties that we normally come out in terms of numbers but they've been estimating that the numbers seems to be fairly accurate. Yeah. So I think that's what we have right yes and and international you I mean you are you are in part using these numbers coming from the health authorities of of of of that is Hamas. Why is that not a a Problem? Because as said that is the numbers that we have and UN organizations ultra other organs are using

these numbers as well and saying that they are credible and saying there are probably lots more people that have died that are still buried under uh rubble and and buildings. But the question the key question is exactly why are we not letting any independent journalists independent investigators uh more people Into Gaza so that we can get an idea of what is going on. We need to see this from different actors and right now Israel is blocking the opportunity also for us in MST International to get an office there and to get um investigators on the

ground. So Christian there is a there are enough international institutions actually believing the numbers getting out of the so we should believe them. What do you think that? Well it sounds like we don't need the ICJ when we have Amnesty International. And I just have to say there is of course also an information war going on and people should be aware of this also when you're representing an interest organization. Uh and I also find it hard to to figure out what exact numbers are the correct but I will say this I have more trust in

the numbers from from Israel than from from Gaza from from Hamas. Uh I I have zero zero trust in a terrorist organization and I will say That I find it extremely problematic that uh an organization like Amnesty International which historically has been very critical of Israel um uses a term like genocide when there is nothing that suggests that that would be uh the the verdict in a in a court. uh and I don't know as much about this as Natasha, so I'll just lean on her expertise. But that is definitely also what I could uh

what I in in my studies have have figured that there is a very High burden of proof when when the when it's about a genocide and it just seems like this is another accusation in a long history of accusations from Amnesty International towards Israel. Actually, I participated in a debate which was uh one of the organizers of two years ago um before the 7th of October in 2023. Uh unfortunately, I didn't get to say very much because uh there were some uh people in the audience who didn't like me, who didn't like when I said

that Israel is the only democracy in the region and it made a lot of noise. So, I couldn't get to my points. But there was a question around afterwards and there was also a representative from Amnesty International who questioned me about uh Israel not treating some of the prisoners uh rights and I just asked her whether they had looked into uh the conditions in Gaza and she couldn't say anything about that because no they are not looking into the conditions there And that's just to me proves that there is a bias there's a bias in

Amnesty International there's also a bias in UF because they're condemning Israel a thousand times more than a lot of other dictatorships around the world. The former UN General Secretary Anun has admitted that there is a clear Israel antibbias try to keep your statements quiet and your answer quite short. So your questions in a second please. This is a very short comment then. I think It's it's extraordinary how this turns into become a tribunal on amnesty and I think that's not the concept. It was a an open dialogue, right? But they're the ones accusing of genocide

and I think that's pretty simple. Can I just you can speak after me if you want if Martin allows you. No, I just want to say Natasha, I think you would make very good politician because you're actually using international law and weaponizing it against the crit critics critical Voices against Israel. And I have to say you do a very good case, but I don't think your arguments are based on law. their policial arguments and that's fully fair but don't cover it up in your interpretation of international law while you have the whole international society more

or less agreeing that Israel is in breach of international law in breach of international humanitarian law which law Geneva Conventions Geneva Conventions Which part okay but that's the whole point being that you are using your position to do politics and that's fully legal. We don't cover it up in legal arguments. Just stand by that you want to defend Israel. And I think it's quite extraordinary as well as my last very short comment that every time there is a discussion on the way Israel is waging it war. The counterargument goes, but look at Hamas and we

have to look at Hamas Obviously, but there is no disagreement, I guess, in this room that we condemn that terror attack, right? That's not what the disagreement is. It's not the discussion on how Israel is carrying out this war. That's the discussion. That's why we discuss it. That cannot be covered for years. So, so there are a few things here. How actually the allegation goes both ways that you are both actually covering political bias by I haven't said a look at Hamas once. Excuse me. I haven't said look at Hamas once. I'm perfectly happy to

discuss Israel's conduct and how it complies not just complies but goes over and above the requirements of international law because let me be clear IHL and the key principles necessity, proportionality, distinction and precaution they are quite basic. what Israel does consistently goes well above the requirements of international law in terms of preventing civilian casualties In Gaza. This is why this allegation is quite so heinous. Now, I haven't said look at Hamas once, apart from their own conduct in seeking to generate as many Palestinian casualties as possible. But the reason that they are an important party

to watch here is because they read these reports. They listen to what Amnesty and others say on international media and how it feeds into political statements and we have the recent one from the UK, France and Canada as a case In point and they take encouragement from that. This perpetuates the conflict. This costs Palestinian lives. Now I appreciate the focus has been on Amnesty. Then I just spread a little of the love by talking about Oxfam Denmark. Uh a tweet from the 23rd of December 2024. I'm afraid I had to translate a lot of this

in Danish, but here we go. Uh, case in point, Israel has only allowed 12 trucks of aid to reach northern Gaza in 2.5 months. Hunger is Being used as a weapon of war, and Israel's blocking of aid is part of ethnic cleansing. Families are starving children and searching through garbage for food. Ceasefire now. Right, that was an allegation. Israel will only allow 12 trucks of aid to reach uh Gaza in 2.5 months. October 2024, 463 trucks. November 2024, 915 trucks. December 2023. So, we're walking backwards, right? Uh 888 trucks. This misinformation is replete in the

report, But Amnesty has put out as well a similar allegation. Crucially, quoting from the report, during uh no month between October 2023 and June 2024, using either URA or KOAP data did the report did the reported number of trucks carrying imports into Gaza come even close to reaching the daily average of 327 trucks. This is what the report says. It purports to have used Kovat data. Now, Kovac is the unit of the Israeli Defense Forces that is Responsible for humanitarian provision in armed conflict. Right? They have a website set up. You can go and look

this up and check because it's all available then uh as to the amount of aid that has gone in. Gaza hyphen a hyphen data.gov.il. Right. This report clearly didn't take that into account because it's incorrect. 263 trucks entered on the 19th of May 2024. 324 trucks entered on the 20th of May 2024. nine uh 298 trucks ended. I'm going to take up too much, but you get the picture. You got the picture. And so and and and your you are your argument here isn't that they I mean Israel is not using famine as a weapon.

Well, my argument where we're being told that this is all because Israel doesn't allow international journalists and aid organizations into Gaza. You have the information on the internet. You're still misrepresenting it. So please Don't take us for fools. So I understand that you're very very critical of Amnesty International but and of fun and probably a lot other organizations as well but my question is this is not we are not the only one in Nest International documenting this and if we put aside the our genocide report lots of other international humanitarian organizations we We have UN

organs. We have legal experts that are saying the same things. And we see pictures and Videos of children that are being bombed. We see people starving. You're probably witnessing that on your social media. A lot of you that are sitting here. But the argument here would be that that that that is probably true that there is starving that there is that there are civilian deaths. A lot of children have have died. The question is really proportionality. I mean what what at what point is the con are the consequences of the war too high? How How

I mean is there is there a legal way to decide that or is it actually as it sounds because also this discussion turns out to be a a political discussion and and maybe it should be understand understood as a political is it a is it a political judgment to to decide whether the proportions are too high? No, it's not a political judgment. Then how do we collecting documentation from the ground which is very very difficult as I said before we Cannot enter Gaza. So we need locals to help us uh go to the field and

go to the to the specific attacks that has happened. Uh we need um reports from doctors without borders that are present. Some of them still are. We have some UN bodies that are still present. Red Cross and they are also saying the same things. They're saying that they need food, that people are dying from hunger now, that they don't have fuel, they don't have all of these equipment. Um, and I mean, from what I hear from you, Natasha, you saying that all of that is wrong, that misinformation. Yes. And I'll tell you why. Um, we've

heard pictures of starving children being referenced. Um, I've seen them reported in the press even yesterday by Sky News. I've also seen the remarkably well-fed mothers next to them. I have never encountered a mother who would eat before her starving child. The fact that very ill children who cannot consume or Or or take in nutrients, which has been the case in in several of these uh propaganda photos. Um the last one, the Sky News report, uh it was clear if you read the the small print that this was a a child who was so ill

it could not accept its mother's breast milk or formula. Right? The fact that these are being used are being presented to you in the media and on social media as evidence of starvation is diabolical because these are sick children that are Being abused. If if there is an allegation of starvation in Gaza and I appreciate that you are trying to facilitate both sides by accepting it. I fundamentally reject it without evidence where the evidence demonstrates the opposite that more than enough food has gone into Gaza. The analysis of this I gave you some numbers, right?

It doesn't mean much. I appreciate trucks, volume, tonnage. The analysis between January and July last year that was conducted by Academics including nutritionists that looked at the nutritional value of the amount of food that had gone in. That is instructive because over 3,000 calories per day per person went in over the course of that period. Now, that is well in excess of the NHS guidelines on recommended calorific intake. I'm assuming you have something similar here in Denmark. Where has this food gone? This is what was facilitated into the Gaza Strip by Israel over the ceasefire

Period. Aid flooded in so that the um stopping of aid in order to pressure Hamas since that ceasefire fell apart was accounted for more than enough. Would you agree at least that within the last in the last two months until a few days ago, Israel withheld aid to get into? This is what I was just saying. This is correct because there was 5 to six months worth of aid stockpiled in Gaza. Where has it gone now? When I visited Gaza in September last year, I Saw the the enormous football field sizes of uh of of

of storage facilities at the border inside Gaza after inspection by Israel of food that was there rotting in some cases. Okay. All right. Just a very brief answer from from from uh from you. Uh what is I mean would you accept that there is a challenge in in creating a sound picture of what is what is happening for instance with aid in Gaza. I mean the argument here is it's actually coming in And then it's disappearing because Hamas is getting it, stealing it, blocking it or whatever. This is the argument of of Israel. What do

you make of this when you when you look at Israel's actions? Well, from what I hear from other NOS's and I just participated in a briefing as well with the heads of Red Cross and Dentures aid and other UNICEF as well. They are saying that there is no food there. It's empty. And they're saying we don't have evidence that it's Hamas that Is deliberately stealing this. Of course, at the moment, people are desperate in Gaza. People are everyone is looking for food. Everyone is looking for how to survive just one more day. So, of course,

people will be eager and desperate to get the food that will come in. But it's not an organized crime by Hamas to steal it. That's not what the big NOS's are telling us. And you were just referring to numbers from Israel. I mean, we need to broaden our perspective And also hear about other organizations that are in Gaza, not just rely on information that comes from Israel. Hamas, do you would do do you think that the numbers and claims coming from Israel uh are trustworthy? Yes. For this reason, uh I worked in Israel at the

Supreme Court. In 2016, I clocked for the former president, uh, the late Miriam No, and I know that Israel is a country of law and order. I know that institutions are held accountable. That's one of the reasons that there will be a delay in getting comment from official spokespeople, from the spokesperson's unit of the IDF, uh, when incidents happen that are reported on the media. So, you know, the truth takes even longer to get his pants on in Israel because it has to be absolutely accurate before they put it out. The notion that this information

can be cast aside, as it clearly has been in this report and others, and Hamas can be Relied on as a substitute, is mind-boggling, but it is indicative of what has happened not just to international organizations, but also to the media across this period. So I have spent a significant degree of time over the last year with with Douglas Murray who I've known for a very long time. He went on an embed with the IDF in Lebanon. Unlike in Gaza where the circumstances of that armed conflict and when I was there in September I saw

that Hamas had had booby traps every second house in Rafa that we were in and was using mosques, schools and hospitals to conduct its terror operations from. So whereas journalists cannot be allowed into Gaza in those circumstances, there was the possibility for them to embed with IDF forces in Lebanon. And do you know what B and this said? We have to be very careful of course what we report because of our colleagues in Beirut. And what Hzbala, another Iranian Terror proxy, would do to their colleagues if they reported the wrong thing. Where is the journalistic

integrity, ladies and gentlemen? And where is the integrity of these organizations that Amnesty and others are relying upon that have consistently put out false information? Only yesterday there was a report that UNICEF was being used to channel funds from the British government into Hamas hands in cash. It's starting to become clear how Hamas have paid for this extraordinary terror army that they have built over so much time. The fact that these organizations operating in Gaza are not able to put put information out that does not have the blessing of Hamas shouldn't come as a surprise

to any of us. But those that repeat it, who have this context and this knowledge, they are severely responsible. Okay, briefly. Yeah. I find it mind-blowing that you say that Amnesty's numbers are wrong. Oxam, UNICEF, OMA, UNDP, all these numbers are wrong. But you actually do not come up with others. You just refer to the Israeli website. I think I just explained exactly why those numbers are wrong and cannot be trusted because they have been shown time and time and again including the um the fact that IPC reports right that previously predicted famine in Gaza

were Based on that incorrect information. They've been discredited. They've been shown to have been uh based only on impartial information to have reached implausible conclusions again and again and again even by UN bodies like the Family Review Committee. So, I mean, only a crazy person would use the same wrong numbers again and again and again and expect a different outcome and expect them to be accurate. So, this you're part of a group called the UK Lawyers base, right? We do what we say on the tin and you made your own reports. I do not know

on what numbers you based your reports though. Uh, but you made different reports and one of your colleagues said that the main health problem in Gaza before the terror attack was obesity. That's completely wrong. I'm sorry. That's another major misrepresentation. Okay. Okay. But it's just fair but point of view is not a Point of view. Okay. I I I it's an interesting discussion. It is. It's very important. We have to include uh you up here. Uh so if is there is this is this only a mic here and who is going to I'm not running

around with it. So who is I don't know. Okay. Uh and please people brief as brief as uh possible. If you want just to do a statement, another question, please do, but do it very brief so we can continue to another uh question. Let's start uh up here. Yes. And up here. See? Up here. Yeah. And uh give us your uh name before and then uh the question. Well done. Yes, that was a bit of a detour, but all right. Okay. Hello. Hello. Yes. Okay. I'll try to be brief because I'm more interested in the

reply than in my actual in my own questions. H I want to get the names right. And you're from Amnesty International. More than once I heard you say today that your reports align with Other organizations and quote Doctors Without Borders and Red Cross. I want to lean back. you exactly you mentioned those two organizations and I want to go back to something that um Christian said that there is a bias that can be proved about those organizations by by the very simple example that even though those organizations specifically the Red Cross is in Gaza they

haven't visited visited the hostages once how can we trust someone who is so close to the real most Direct victims of the conflict right now they haven't been visited once not by claims of them and not by Hamas. No one has allowed them that Amnesty International holds a very big responsibility on putting numbers that are beyond question and putting claims that are beyond question. And the accusation so the question the accus the question is exactly that. How can you base numbers and methodology on organizations that can be proved that Are that have a bias against

Israel and bear the responsibility of Amnative International to back this claim following those questions. Okay. We we in a in a sense I think in a sense we already covered uh this uh but just briefly uh we are talking about organizations which uh Israel and other critics would say have have a bias against Israel like UNRA for instance uh what do you think Red Cross do not have a bias what I know Against Israel and we do not have a bias and amnesty against Israel so It's not the Please, please don't laugh when people are

saying anything. Just don't do that again. Okay. All right. That's really really stupid. Just get out. All right. So, so uh so okay. So, uh so, so just maybe you should explain why Amnesty International uh doesn't have a bias against uh against Israel. I think I've said that already from the beginning what our mandate is and our mandate is to cover violations of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law and that is what we are doing and we are looking into the attacks that happened the 7th of October I already said that and also

what is happening now in Gaza against civilians uh so our aim is to protect civilians and that's it and that is what we're doing and we are relying on information That we get from trusted NOS's like Red Cross like UNICEF like culture like IPC like doctors without borders and we would if we could we would like to have an office ourselves in Gaza where we have been kicked out Israel so we relying on local field workers okay thanks and question yeah I would just like to comment uh real quick because I I actually agree with

this this shouldn't be like a football match where you you are rooting For one team uh and and I can't sit here and rule out that there might have uh committed war crimes in this conflict. And I think I just think it should be up to the ICJ and not Amnesty International to decide. And I will say this, it's just very very very unlikely that there is a genocide. I think the only part that has had genocidal intent in this conflict is Hamas and that is very clear because they have a stated uh purpose of

of trying to destroy Israel. Do you think Hamas has has genocidal? We're talking about genocide when it comes to Israel. Do you think Hamas does? I don't know. I'm not an expert on that. What I can what I can say what what I can say is that based on what I know that made a terrible our outrageous terror attack on Israel that we can only do one thing about condemn and we can ask for the responsible People to be persecuted and punished. Okay, we need everyone else. Okay, we so so you don't know. So So

what do you think of Natasha? And we need more mics for the next the next time. Forgive me. But there are some responses that are laughable and this is one of them. Hamas is clear about its genocidal intent. Uh Yaya Sinoir was clear when he called before the 7th of October to tear down the border and tear out the hearts and The livers of the Jews. Right. Genocidal intent against the Jews. remember um ethnic, racial, religious or national group. The fact that anyone would would have a anything less than a degree of 100% clarity given

the repeated statements by Hamas, given their charter, and given their clear statements to commit those genocidal acts over and over again is utterly baffling. Right. Yeah. No, I I just noticed that Natasha just basically wants to laugh at my answer. So, it's no very good conversation. Actually, there was an argument that that that the leader of Hamas said something very clear about destroying Israel as a tearing out their Hamas is a terror organization. No, I'm just asking you if you think it that Hamas has genocidal intent behind the terror attack. They certainly committed a whole

lot of war crimes and probably also Crimes against humanity. That's why there is an arrest war also at the ITC for one of the leaders that had also passed died killed. Yes. Like the two others that was also on the list. You want to take it? Please. I want to take it. Yes. Thank you. Um it's just I think this point is very central cuz cuz this proves a bias. you you're reluctant to say whether Hamas has genocidal at intent, but you're very quick in in judging Israel as having a genocidal Intent, even though that

is very what would you say if you were asked if Israel if Hamas had genocidal intent behind the attack in October 7. In Amnesty International, we haven't done research into the question of genocide from Hamas. We haven't we are right now looking into uh the war crimes that took place and crimes against humanity against the Israeli population. Okay, just to let you I mean nobody really gets any uh uh gets cle more Clever or enlightened by by you know sounds and laughter and so on. Then I have a question here and then up here afterwards

name please and question. My name is Nina Bond. Uh first of all Natasha from one lawyer to another. Thank you for your patience. We've just heard today from you that you base your politics and your statement as a politician on what comes from Amnesty. So I'm putting you aside and unfortunately again a question for Amnesty. when or let's say if ICJ conclude that there's a genocide isn't a risk that MC by being so bombastic in your conclusive and report that you've undermined the concept and the protection of that term because of your premature conclusions and

how do you think people will react out on the streets with activism and calls of weaponized resistance if and when ICJ comes to the conclusion that There's no genocide cuz they will point at you and say you told us there was a genocide. Are you not at risk at harming this? All right. As I also said earlier, we're looking at all violations against um or uh all violations of international humanitarian law and human rights. And we don't have a hierarchy. So we look into war crimes. We look into crimes against humanity into genocide if that's

what we can find Documentation and see that is uh going on. And we believe that genocide and the convention was made uh with the purpose of preventing such an act uh from being committed again. And we believe that we have the responsibility to put out all the documentation that we have available to analyze it to use our legal experts, our teams of military experts and tech experts to then look into if this is genocide or not. And we also respect the ICJ and of course they should have time To come with their verdict. But but

the question was whether you were too fast in in in establishing this as a fact. No, I don't think if if the court will come to the conclusion that it's not genocide that you were wrong, then we will have to look at that. I mean I I don't know what will happen at the ICJ, but I believe that we and Amnesty have found the uh so much evidence and so much documentation that we can put out this report. I don't know if you read it But it is very comprehensive times. Yeah. We believe that it's

okay. Uh up up there that's a question please. All right. Uh my name is Tobias and I'll keep this rather brief because it's mostly just a question of elaboration. Uh we've talked a lot about biases uh both in relation to Hamas but also in relation to non-governmental agencies and organizations backed by the UN who were put in place to stop the atrocities of the 20th century from ever repeating Itself. Uh and just before maybe a couple of minutes ago, uh we kind of glossed over the part uh where we talked about the fact that we're

not allowing any third party observers in Gaza. Like to my knowledge, there are two biased parts in any conflict. That counts for Hamas as well as Israel. Why do Israel not allow any third party or service? Just just a question. I don't know. We we don't really have any uh you know officials from Israel. But you want to I Can tell you I can tell you what I've been told when I've asked that a question of officials and it's because of the military um situation in the Gaza Strip and and frankly the limited ability that

I had to visit with a military expert panel was limited. What journalists have consistently demanded is the ability to to wander freely to speak to people. that is not possible in the context of the armed conflict that Israel has been forced to encounter in The Gaza Strip. But there is a very important point here. May I just come back to it briefly? Um, and it's relevant because the ICJ was just referenced again. Um, and it comes back to this debate about whether international law is being rewritten. And I I thought I had seen this in

the report, but I didn't want to say anything before locating the quote. Um, it's baffling to me the argument that was being put forward because the report At paragraph 5.5.2 two on intent is perfectly clear that Amnesty is rewriting the definition of genocide or at least seeking to develop international law significantly where it says however it's referring to the international court of justice rulings on inferring intent can be extremely can be read extremely narrowly in a manner that would potentially preclude a state from having genocidal intent alongside one or more additional motives or goals In

relation to the conduct of its military operations As I've outlined below, Amnesty International considers that this is an overly cramped interpretation of international juristprudence and one that would effectively preclude a finding of genocide in the context of an armed conflict. This is what they say in their own report. So to have it contradicted by a representative today and to be told, "No, no, no, no. We're not seeking To rewrite international law here. Just apply it really does stretch the bounds of of credibility." What was the answer to the question? Why security issues? Just imagine for

a moment, right? These journalists, these international organizations that that essentially go and they're not able to report freely. We know that because Hamas controls everything that comes out of the Gaza Strip. Imagine the battlefield that Israel is encountering with Hamas Pretending to be civilians fighting house to house. This is this is their tactic that they deploy. Wouldn't you agree that also Israel is biased in this conflict when it comes to information? in terms of the information that it puts out. Biased in what sense? The numbers? No, the numbers you has an interest in keeping numbers

lower than they might be higher. The difficulty I have with that suggestion is if Israel ever puts out any information that is not 120% Verifiable, it will not uh live to see another day of credibility. I appreciate the people sitting uh on my left don't consider Israel credible anyway, but the fact is the information that they've put out checks out again and again because the accountabil of the accountability that exists in Israel amongst these institutions, which is what happens in a democracy. Any comparison between that and an internationally prescribed terrorist organization that has a track

Record of fabricating, lying and influencing the international media according to its propaganda agenda is truly truly disgraceful. Okay, thanks. Uh up here uh and we have 10 more minutes and we'll have we'll try to have as many questions as possible. Please go ahead keep it brief and then the question is is yours with a question mark at the end. Yes, thank you very much. And this is mostly a question to Christian Holigulus. And uh this is in your presentation already you said rather in one sentence that the court that is the ICJ must judge but

at the same time you said that you already uh deemed that it is highly unlikely there there is any genocide to be judged about. Um I am reading very shortly a summary of the court from its summary. It's 66, but it's summarized in the start. In view of the fundamental values sought to be protected by genocide convention. The Court considers that the plausible rights in question in these proceedings, namely the right of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts identified in article 3 of the

genocide convention and the right of South Africa to seek Israel's compliance with the latter's obligation under the convention are of such a nature that prejudice to them is capable of causing irreparable harm. That is a Very long sentence to say risk of genocide. How do you relate to that risk? Okay. Well, I don't think any you said contradicts what what I said because I I can't rule out um what is what is actually happening in in the Gaza street right now. I find it highly unlikely uh that there is a genocide going on. Um but

what the the ICJ has said is that there's it's plausible. So that's why they have put out six provisional Measures to to to make sure that that there won't be as many civilian deaths. That does not mean that they think there is a genocide going on that is trying to make sure that there won't be a genocide. Would the gentleman be kind enough to read the paragraph reference for plausible genocide? I can I can save you some time. It No, it doesn't exist. The paragraph, the paragraph that you just read out has Been consistently misrepresented

up to the point when Joan Donahue up to the point when Joe Donahghue, who wrote that order, the former president of the International Court of Justice, came out on hard talk on the BBC to correct the record on this. But that is continuing to be misrepresented now really takes the biscuit. Plausible plausible rights is the provisional measures test. It asks, "Do the rights that South Africa is claiming on behalf of the Palestinians fall under the genocide convention?" There was no assessment of the merits. There was no assessment of the case that Israel has put forward.

The court is clear in its order. The fact that he read out that paragraph and then said, "Well, this is basically plausible genocide." If this is if if that is what the court found, it would have said. So this is a perfect example of even the circus of the International Court of Justice Continually being misrepresented and it has informed undoubtedly an awful lot of the policy decisions that have been taken against Israel on a completely misconceived basis. Okay. We can take more questions. Yeah. Hello. My name is uh Max. Uh this is a question um

directed mostly to Natasha. So you were talking about the Hamas statements that you can clearly see that there's genocidal intent in them. U but I feel like there's a double standard Because you said oh you can clearly see that they're genocidal Hamas or whatever. I'm not here to defend them. I'm just saying, you know, that there's a logical fallacy when you say you can't see it in Israel. And you said, "Oh, but it's not a representation of policy when you look at the statements from the government of Israel, but you say it's, oh, you can

see the genocidal intent in Hamas when you look at their statements. So, it's Kind of like, okay, it's just picking and choosing from your side, you know, that's what it feels like." Thank you. Okay. Yes. Briefly, why does it count when it's Hamas and not Israel? Because Hamas recorded on GoPros when they committed their barbarous atrocities that fulfilled those acts of genocide demonstrating the intent when they raped and slaughtered and burned babies. when they came armed with maps and Instructions about who lived in which house and family by family what they were intending to do

to each of the family members. That is not any kind of of of distinction that one can can draw. It is on the basis of evidence and clear demonstrative intent which has even been repeated after the event. So there is no comparison there whatsoever I'm afraid. All right. And a question up here. I have a question to you. What evidence would you need to Change your mind? Because I've seen you. I've followed you. You lo evidence of what? Of genocide that we were talking about uh long before there was a report from Amnesty. You uh

was uh very active uh in an antipalis Israelian uh way. Uh, what evidence do you need of there not being a genocide? Okay. Trina, did you make up your mind before? That's a question, isn't it? Yeah. First of all, I didn't call it a genocide before there was a report. I Said it was a lot of war crimes and so that was my language and I stand by that. I think it was easy to see because a lot of documentation was out before the Amnesty report. And second, I'm not anti-Israel. Oh yeah, I'm No, I'm

not anti-Israel. I'm pro international law. I'm pro human human rights and I'm pro Geneva Conventions. And I think they should apply to each and every party in a war. And I think the problem here is not That we all able to see it and use it against Hamas and other terror organizations. I think the big problem and it comes back to your question Max. Why is it so difficult to use the same lens when we look at what Israel is doing in Gaza? That's the problem. That's the key problem. The same lens as the same

lens as we use when we look at the way Hamas, Russia, all other parties that do breach international law. All Right. Okay. Uh over here we have the last question I'm afraid. Okay. So I have a question for you because uh I study international law here as well with with Christian. I actually have my exam zoom on this. It's very difficult as you can imagine and I've read through the provisional measures of the international court of justice. H in January they accepted the case etc. But then in March or one month later Israel Had to

hand in a report. We don't know the contents because it's confidential. But then in March they said unanimously that Israel should not hinder humanitarian aid, should not be obstructed, etc. And they documented the whole dire situation for the Palestinians. But I don't get your point about the whole food trucks because to me it seems that the International Court of Justice was quite clear in the whole dire situation in Palestine and that There might be obstruction from the side of Israel. So could you please elaborate on that? The International Court of Justice misstate the facts and

they were actually called out on this by the vice president in her dissenting opinions. um had vice president Julia Sevitindo um and she she was the only one to actually reference Kodak data which is the data that I'm referring you to un inexplicably apart from the fact that we know who was leading the court at the Time the president Judge Salam who's now left the court in order to resume a role in uh Lebanese politics and before he was president at the international court of justice he was um accusing Israel of war crimes and of

being a terrorist state. Now his reference has become even worse. I invite you to have a look at his Twitter feed in the last couple of days. So in any other context you would have been required to recuse himself. But that is why you've got the International Court of Justice basing uh unfortunately even these provisional measures orders um on on uh a false picture of the fact. Nevertheless, the requirements of these orders have consistently been clear that Israel act to prevent a genocide from occurring. and Israel has consistently been clear that what it is doing

in Gaza is not a genocide and so it is complying with these political measure orders. Can I can I end asking the two of you here Because we asked you already what would happen if if if the court rules that this is not genocide. What would you accept it if the court rules that that it is in fact genocide? What is happening? I'm afraid I can't because I can see the evidence very clearly and I can also see consistently how this court has been approaching the facts and the law. The idea that and we just

heard you know that the other side is pro- international law, pro the Geneva Conventions, pro- human rights. But what we are witnessing is an inversion of each of those concepts in pursuit of the agenda of internationally prescribed terrorist organizations. and when the international court of justice which has you know separately also called for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Judea and Samaria and from East Jerusalem and also wiped Israel off the map when it talked about the contiguous nature of Palestinian territory. This is the call That you are asking me about it is one that

has lost all credibility and the reason that is so desperate is that ignore Israel right now. Okay. because what's so so would it be right to say that both of you also what you said in the beginning F is saying that what is happening right now is a question of life and death of the international uh law system I mean if if it rules one way you you will think this is I mean this is a sign the proof that international Justice has died if it doesn't uh would you say that actually this is this

is a real problem of of international justice What happens in Israel is a real problem of international justice and the future. This is what happens when you weaponize international law. When you weaponize these terms and these concepts in international law, they become devoid of meaning. This is why what is happening is not just dire for Israel. What starts with the Jews does not end with the Jews. You are absolutely right that it is the international legal order that is at stake because why it while it is being manipulated inverted and yes while the world and

his wife Amnesty the UN uh special raptors yes we've heard the shopping list of them they are all wrong because they're all singing off the same hymn sheet and this is what is doing the most destruction to international law and for people to profess to wish to uphold it while serving such an active Role in its destruction is deeply deeply troubling to me. Okay. So, so Natasha says that it is I mean this is really a question of the international uh system of law. It is at stake here. In what way do you think it

is? But it's not just because of what Israel is doing in Gaza, but because the whole international society with Russia's aggressive attack on Ukraine, with the way that the US is now threatening countries to overtake and annex. So There are a lot of big powers around threatening that system and there are few that actually stands up for it and the issue of Gaza and Israel's war crimes in Gaza and in Palestine as such is still being questioned, ridiculed. So I think the problem here about that is a very specific issue that and I'm sorry Natasha

I really I respect your arguments they're political they're not legal and I also have to say that I Really find it quite extremist to say that the only way the international system of laws can save itself is from not judging Israel. All right. Okay. Because that's that's the essence of what he's saying. That's a fundamental misrepresentation. That's exactly what you said. Okay. Then you Yeah, please. No, I I thought, forgive me. I I Please do it very very briefly. Well, look, I know I'm I'm in English here and Everyone's doing this in English for my

benefit. So, thank you for that. But I thought I had made myself extremely clear. I am criticizing the inversion of international law, the use of these terms as political terms masquerading as legal ones. It means that they're devoid of any meaning. If anyone can sit here and in the same breath say Israel is guilty of genocide, but Hamas or I'm not so sure. It threatens the very integrity of the international legal system. It Means that these are no longer courts if they are following this suit, but they are political bodies. All right. Okay. Thank you

very much. Thanks for coming here. Thanks for coming from from the UK to join us. Thanks for for for this all of you for joining this uh debate and putting up with with those horrible arguments from the counterparts and risk representations and all that. It's been very very uh interesting opportunities For all of you. Thanks for coming uh here tonight. Thank you all. Heat. Heat.