Transcription
Okay, welcome everyone. It's a pleasure for me to be hosting Natasha Heddorf, a leading British barrister and international lawyer to help us make sense of what are perhaps, uh, confusing times.
We've been hearing in the past week from numerous European leaders, as well as those from Canada and other countries, that the, uh, attack by the United States and Israel on the Islamic regime in Iran is a violation of international law. Now, for many of us, it's curious because as the regime was slaughtering thousands of protesters and fermenting terrorism around the world, we didn't hear very often from many of these leaders about violations of international law. So, a whole bunch of questions arise, and we're really pleased to have Natasha here with us.
And Natasha, I guess, you know, again, two things arise for me. One is, uh, are, are, are the leaders, the European leaders, correct? Have you heard these statements by these European leaders saying that the, the operations by the US and Israel in Iran are against international law? And what do you think about that? Are, are, is, is the current, uh, operation of the US and Israel a violation of international law?
>> So, uh, great to be with you. I, I have heard these repeated statements, and they appear to me to be simply, um, using buzzwords to promote a particular agenda here. I mean, whether you agree with the strikes or not, the cover of, um, supposed international law does seem to be rapidly deployed to justify that position. Um, either it is a position that says, you know, all war is illegal, and I think, um, we've seen a number of politicians seeming to adopt that, uh, particular perspective. I mean, that's entirely false in the context of international law.
Well, let me, let me, let me, uh, interfere for just a moment. I did hear, for example, the, the, uh, Canadian, my prime minister say that, um, you know, you have to go to the UN first. Which, which is, which is an interesting proposition if, um, you know, if, in, if during World War II, Hitler was massacring Jews and millions of others around the world, uh, and you needed to get approval from Russia and China, which hold the veto at the Security Council. I mean, maybe we'll just start with that. Does, does, is, is the United States obliged to get approval from the Security Council, meaning the approval of Russia and China, to undertake any military operation?
>> Uh, of course not to undertake any military operation. It depends what the justification the United States has to, uh, begin a military operation. There are certain circumstances. So, for example, uh, under the framework of the responsibility to protect, so the justification of violating another state's sovereignty for humanitarian purposes, say, to protect the civilian population, that would require Security Council authorization. And it's correct that there is an avenue for the lawful use of force via the mechanisms of the UN.
Bill Clinton, if I recall, in the late '90s, uh, when he bombed, uh, Serbia to stop them massacring Kosovars and probably saved hundreds of thousands of people. They didn't get Security Council approval. So, was that like responsibility to protect, but they didn't even get Security Council approval? And many of the people in the Democratic Party who are attacking, uh, the Republicans and Trump, uh, at the time supported Clinton. So, what's that about?
>> Well, it's fair to say that, um, the doctrine of the responsibility to protect is niche and controversial. Um, the general consensus is that Security Council, uh, approval would be required, but of course, it's been exercised absent that, and it has provided justifications for other interventions. Um, but the important thing to appreciate here, um, is that frankly, many people are having the wool pulled over their eyes if these, um, uh, propositions are being put forward simply on the basis of humanitarian intervention or, um, response, um, to an imminent threat, a preemptive strike. Um, all of that misses the fundamental basis for the military action that we have seen from the US and from Israel. Uh, and, uh, that is on the basis of an long-running armed conflict, uh, between specifically Iran and Israel, an armed conflict that has been running for decades. Um, the reason this is important is because there are two major frameworks in, uh, the law of armed conflict that govern the use of force. One of those frameworks governs, um, resort to force. So, the use of force absent the context of an existing armed conflict. And, and this is where this misleading discussion, uh, amongst politicians saying that this is a violation of international law. That is where that discussion has been taking place in what is referred to as the *jus ad bellum* framework. So, the, the law governing a resort to force and the use of force in the first instance.
That's the wrong.
>> That means, is this, is this the accusation of aggression? I mean, it's, it's said that Israel and the US are engaged in aggression.
>> That's an entirely separate allegation. Um, and it's, it's, uh, an allegation that, that is advanced, uh, which is predicated on the basis that this is an unlawful use of force, uh, and therefore can qualify as aggression. Um, but what all of that analysis plainly misses is the applicable legal framework here, which is not *jus ad bellum*, but in fact *jus in bello*, the law that governs the use of force in an ongoing armed conflict. And of course, um, very closely parallel to that is this inherent right of self-defense that states have, which is recognized by Article 51 of the UN Charter. So, bringing in all of these strands, it's absolutely farcical to suggest that one would be required to obtain UN approval for the exercise of one's self-defense. Uh, likewise, it is farcical that one would require any other form of authority to respond to, uh, Iranian aggression, which we have seen both against Israel and against the US for decades in the context of an ongoing armed conflict.
There are.
>> Sorry, I'm going to interrupt for a moment, but are you saying that basically that America and Israel didn't just start a war, but that there was basically an armed conflict. There was a war ongoing for a certain period, and therefore this is just one operation as part of an existing war?
>> Yes. And, and that's pretty trite. It's very straightforward. It has been the Israeli position, certainly when Israel put out its legal analysis, uh, in the June exchanges, uh, Operation Rising Lion, that was made clear. And the facts, uh, speak for themselves. You know, there have been, um, aggressive acts, uses of force by the Iranian regime against Israel and Israeli interests for decades, both indirectly via Iranian proxies, Hamas, Hezbollah, uh, proxies also in Iraq and in Syria, and then latterly also those direct strikes that we saw, ballistic missiles, uh, drone strikes on Israeli civilian communities over the last, uh, couple of years. So, in that context, all of these protestations that rely on imminence, that rely on a resort to force, uh, and that false legal analysis, um, really has two very damaging effects. First of all, it spreads this disinformation about the legal justification of these strikes. But it also, I think, has a second very damaging effect on international law itself. Because if it is being suggested that international law prevents the US and Israel from conducting these strikes, um, protecting their own national interests, defending their citizens and their, uh, national security interests, then international law can't possibly be worth the paper it is written on. It devalues and, um, uh, creates a, a sense in which, uh, international law, um, is seen not to carry sufficient weight, uh, not to have any credibility left. Uh, and that is an extremely damaging outcome, I think, for all of the, uh, audience that we're speaking to who care, I'm sure, about the international legal order, the rules.
Certainly, certainly in the past week, um, we have had many decent people who are not experts in international law, cuz you, you've made an articulate case why, uh, why there is an, there is an existing ongoing armed conflict between, uh, Iran and Israel, for example, um, and, uh, and that's why, you know, they, under international law, they do have a justification for taking out, you know, uh, IRGC, uh, rockets and missiles and, and all of that, which are being used to attack Israelis.
>> And leaders.
>> But, but, but separate from that, there are, there have been many people, including leaders, I think Germany's leaders and, and some others, who were saying, you know, uh, if indeed international law prevents this, then something's wrong. I mean, international law should not be a suicide pact. Certainly, um, you know, in, in World War II, the, international law was, was not something that blocked America and, and Britain from destroying Hitler and the Nazis. So.
>> So, there's, I think there's good news and bad news on that point. That the good news is that international law doesn't say, uh, what these detractors of the US and of Israel are suggesting. It says, uh, it does not prevent these strikes, uh, and it, um, endorses and embraces the sort of, of use of force here in this defensive, uh, fashion, but also in the context of this ongoing armed conflict. But the bad news is that these repeated misstatements about international law are doing immense damage, not just to the public understanding of what these strikes are, um, and their legitimacy, but also to this whole international rules-based system. And I think that's, that's certainly what we've seen some, uh, leaders, including in, in Germany, referring to.
And look, the, the, uh, the ongoing conflict between Iran and Israel is pretty evident for anyone who's, uh, who has eyes to see. The, uh, IRGC had created this ring of fire to surround and destroy Israel. They said it openly. They, uh, created and armed this massive army called Hezbollah, which is larger than most armies in the world. Um, in Lebanon, they had, uh, they had their own forces in Syria that Israel had to keep hitting time and time again. So, again, reiterating what you said, this is an existing armed conflict. Every, every few months for the past decade or so, Israel had to bomb Iranian forces that were across Israel's border in Syria. Uh, they created and armed, I don't know if they created, but they certainly armed the Houthis in Yemen, which were firing missiles at Israel. They, of course, armed Hamas, which committed the October 7th massacre. So, Iran has been, uh, attacking Israel in massive ways for the past several years. So, all of that, anyone who's, who's remotely fair-minded should be able to see.
What about, what about, uh, the US? Has, has, can we rightly say that Iran and the US have been in an existing armed conflict?
>> Uh, yes. And just before we get to that, I would add that under the, uh, rules of state responsibility for unlawful conduct, um, simply the, the aiding and abetting, as you say, the arming would be sufficient for Iran to be responsible for the acts of its proxies. But of course, we all know it has done far more than that, and it has been directing, uh, the military activities of, uh, of these proxy armies that it has built. So far as the United States is concerned, I think there are multiple layers of potential justification, uh, for their involvement. Um, the first is very much related to Israel and Iran's ongoing armed conflict, and that is because the right to self-defense is both individual and collective. So, the United States supporting its close ally Israel, uh, in that ongoing war with Iran is a perfectly legitimate lawful basis for the US to have joined these strikes. Um, separate to that, of course, you have, in terms of the remarks of the president, a tracing back even to the 1979 revolution of the attacks by this Islamic regime in Iran on Americans, American service personnel, American national security interests, and the threats that it was posing to America more broadly. Now, that included, of course, the 1979 hostage-taking, but it has also included hundreds of US service personnel that have been killed by the Islamic regime and its proxies in the decades, uh, that followed there. Um, on top of, um, you know, justifications one and two, namely the existing armed conflict, uh, that Israel has, the arguable armed conflict that, uh, the US has necessarily been involved with, uh, we then have as justification layer number three, the position that the US president put out in respect of a preemptive strike, uh, against an imminent threat. And this is perhaps what has been most widely discussed, arguably the most controversial aspect.
But I.
>> Wasn't imminent. We didn't, we didn't see the, the gun pointed at, at, at the US. That's, that's the argument.
>> So, I think that's a really important point to break down. And I stress, in the context of this discussion that we're having, it is, if you will, the third level of legal, uh, justification, uh, for US intervention. But nonetheless, it's an important and, I think, interesting part of international law because the question of self-defense, uh, which is exercised in a preemptive fashion, has been governed by this concept of imminence. And the big question is, what is an imminent threat? What is an imminent strike? What, uh, was considered to be imminent, perhaps in the era of the cannonball? When this concept was first introduced into the framework of international law, uh, in the 1860s with what's referred to as the Caroline incident, uh, that involved warfare essentially between, uh, ships, navy ships, and cannonballs were, uh, were the most sophisticated, uh, piece of military hardware at the time. How that concept of imminence has evolved to take into account modern warfare, to take into account cyber strikes, which might amount to, uh, an armed attack, use of force, to take into account the introduction of nuclear weapons, where waiting until the Ayatollah has his finger on the red button, uh, would quite simply, quite frankly, be too late. So, this discussion of imminence, which has undoubtedly, uh, been through an evolution and an update through, you know, the US's involvement in the war on terror, strikes that were taken, uh, by previous American administrations, against terrorist assets in countries, uh, where there was no existing ongoing armed conflict, including in, in Libya and in Syria. Um, in that respect, the concept of imminence has definitely been through an update. Um, and there are big questions to be asked as to what, uh, what imminent threat justifies that sort of preemptive strike. In the context of the information that we've had, including from Steve Wicker, of the information that the Iranians were revealing in the latest negotiations, suggesting.
>> How much, how much, uh, enriched uranium they had to make nuclear bombs.
>> 60% enriched uranium. Uh, and.
>> I think for civilian purposes, you only need maybe 3%. 60% is obviously to make nuclear weapons. Yeah. But, but I think the most important revelation that we had from, from the US administration in the context of these negotiations were that the Iranians were crowing that they essentially had the ability to create 11 nuclear warheads and therefore that was the starting position that they were adopting in these negotiations. You know, in that respect, um, imminence does seem to be very clearly made out, especially when you are talking about nuclear installations that have been deliberately built so far underground so as to seek to render them immune to American strikes. Uh, this is playing with fire. If European leaders are expecting the United States and Israel to sit back and to wait until one of those nuclear warheads has been launched, we have parallel examples, you know, situations.
Is there any, is there any reason that anyone would think that Iran would attack other countries?
>> Oh, perhaps their repeated statements over many, many decades of seeking the wherewithal to, uh, carry out and make good on their threats to wipe Israel off the map.
>> I'm sure Iran would never fire missiles at another country.
>> Well, the.
>> Except, except maybe for, uh, Emirates, Bahrain, Saudi, Qatar, Oman, heading towards Turkey, intercepted, heading towards Cyprus, uh, Israel, of course, Jordan. Um, and I guess missiles that apparently could reach Greece. I mean, if they could reach Turkey. Yeah. So, um, so it's.
>> So, for anyone who was in any doubt, um, they need not, uh, linger under that doubt anymore. But this idea that we shouldn't take the Islamic regime in Iran at their word of what they have threatened to do to both the little Satan, Israel, the big Satan, uh, the United States, and of course, England has been repeatedly referred to in their, uh, chants for death and destruction, is again, pretty remarkable, but I think demonstrative of this sort of parallel universe that many of those who have been decrying these strikes, falsely decrying these strikes as illegal, seem to be inhabiting. And, and that is something that is extremely damaging, I think, for, for, you know, the good of Western civilization. We've seen, if you will, a, a sense of of wokeness, um, infiltrating these discussions about international law. I've even seen, you know, prominent US journalists saying it is unlawful for a stronger state to strike a weaker state.
>> Wow. Wow. Oh.
>> Uh, so that the level of, of, um, of, uh, discussion has become, you know, you know, has entered into the realm of, of the ridiculous in many respects.
>> Wow. Look, you know, all of this discussion about, um, what you described, how Iran has obviously been racing toward a nuclear bomb, boasting just recently that they have enriched uranium at 60%, they could make 11 nuclear bombs, what they told Witkoff, uh, in their negotiations, um, and, and their massive, uh, campaign to build ballistic missiles, and we've seen how they use them against all of their neighbors. We've seen how they've massacred tens of thousands of their own people. So, if, if, if you're a leader of, of a democracy that's being, um, being, uh, described as an enemy or a Satan by Iran, they're building nuclear weapons. They're building thousands of ballistic missiles. They're, we know what they do to their own people. The idea that you, you would wait until it's too late is, as you've made the case, is, is absurd, and it's not something that international law is meant to promote. And I, I'm just reminded of Winston Churchill, you know, his, his famous book after World War II. Um, I think the first volume is entitled *The Gathering Storm*. And it all begins with, all of this could have been prevented for 10 years prior to World War II. Winston Churchill was standing up and and sounding the alarm, and he was saying, Hitler is breaching one, uh, prohibition after another and rearming and rearming, and we need to stop him now. And in his book, he makes out, had had the allies done a, a tiny bit of action in the early '30s, in the mid-'30s, or in the late '30s, they could have stopped Hitler. But at each moment, they didn't. And then it was too late. He took over all of Europe, and, and we, we might have all been speaking still speaking German today if, if Churchill had not, um, you know, led the fight to, to, to remove him. So, um, yeah, I don't know. How does that, uh, is that, come, come to mind when thinking about the threat of Iran, that, uh, if we just wait too long, it's just too late?
>> Most certainly. And I think it is incumbent on upon us all to learn from history that the, the notion that there is, um, any alternative to this form of tyranny, uh, than standing up to it, is a very, um, misplaced one. And certainly, we've seen throughout, um, the last two decades especially, uh, the attempted negotiations with the Islamic regime in Iran, uh, the JCPOA, uh, the constant foot-dragging, uh, that has been used and abused by this regime to seek to shore themselves up, to build up their terror proxies, and indeed to secure their path, uh, to nuclear capabilities, offensive nuclear capabilities. Um, and so, in so many respects, I feel like we've been in that movie, uh, before for the last two decades at least. Now, uh, is the time for this sort of decisive action, and, and it is something that ought to be, uh, celebrated and lauded, certainly to my mind. There's been a lot of focus, of course, on, um, the law-abiding, um, position by the United States and Israel, but it's remarkable that that next to no attention is given to the flagrant violations, of course, of international law by the Islamic regime. Um, and that is not just to do with the war that they have been waging against Israel and the US and the West, as a, as a broader sense, um, with the targeting of civilians, with the use of the IRGC, uh, in terror attacks, um, throughout the world. Um, even just.
I'm going to interrupt you. There was just a report this morning, as we're speaking, that they arrested, uh, four individuals, one Iranian and three dual nationals, who were seeking to spy on Jews in Britain on behalf of.
>> In the UK. And of course, when, when Prime Minister Kiarma made his famous, "We were not involved, we did not participate" speech, he also referred to the scores of attempted terror attacks, uh, on the soil, excuse me, on the soil of the United Kingdom, targeting British citizens, that had been, uh, luckily foiled by the, uh, security services here in the UK. Um, but all of this, um, needs to be taken into account where any discussion on international law is being entertained. Excuse me. You can see I've been doing too many interviews.
>> I know. And I'll give you a break for a second then. And nobody mentions it. In other words, what you're saying is, suddenly they, they want to speak about international law if it's to condemn the US and Israel. But, uh, terrorism in the streets of London today, it, it was revealed against, planned terrorism against Jews in Britain, but of course, in the UK. But of course, there were incidents that, that we know about personally. UN Watch, because, uh, it was a year or two ago where we gave an award to Iranian international journalists who were targeted. The Iranian agents came to stab them in London. This is a major television station run by opposition, and Iran sent assassins to stab them. And I guess what you're saying is, there's been many, many, uh, incidents like this. And you, you rarely hear a European leader stand up and say, "I want to condemn Iran for violating international law." But that's what they do.
Or, or even its most recent use of cluster munitions, um, in the ballistic volleys that it has fired towards Israeli civilian communities. Um, the use of cluster munitions in, in populated areas is absolutely illegal as a matter of customary international law, as a matter of the, the international, uh, humanitarian law, the law of armed conflict.
>> Is that because it's mass indiscriminate firing in civilian areas?
>> Precisely. But this is the modus operandi, uh, as you have indicated, of the, uh, Islamic regime there, um, targeting its own civilians and targeting the civilians, um, of, uh, of other countries. Um, and of course, repeated attempts on the life of the US president, as he referred to, um, in his, uh, speech declaring the, uh, opening of these, um, uh, combat operations, as he referred to.
>> Well, that's huge. You know, um, we saw for, for a few years, I guess it was happening during the Biden administration, where, perhaps Iran's motivation was to get revenge for Soleimani. Um, but, but it, it was, we know that they tried to assassinate President Trump. They tried to assassinate the former head of the National Security Council, John Bolton. Uh, there were other senior officials, US officials, that were targeted for assassination, um, uh, by the Islamic regime. And of course, um, a friend of mine, Massih Alinejad, one of the leading dissidents from Iran, one of the leading women's rights activists, who you could say was the pioneering figure of the women, life, freedom movement more than a decade ago. She lives in exile in New York City. She's a journalist in Brooklyn, and there were multiple attempts to assassinate her. And I attended the trial a year ago, I think it was about a year ago, in, uh, US federal court in New York, where the, uh, Russian mobsters, they were central Asian, Russian mobsters, were hired by the Islamic regime, operated by them, given her address, her phone number, her, you know, her picture, and they came with a Kalashnikov to her home in Brooklyn to kill her. A leading, a leading women's rights activist, one of the leading opposition figures in the world on Iran. It happened on US soil, and nothing happened, right? I mean, now people are complaining that America is doing too much. But, you know, in a way, the opposite is true. The United States, uh, they indicted these people. So, that's great. You, you know, they, you find a criminal who was hired to kill people and you indict one person, but they were sent by the regime. And I was thinking during those years, the Biden administration, the Biden administration is doing nothing. You have this Islamic regime in Iran is trying to assassinate the president, leading officials. They did nothing. So now we're seeing something. People don't want to talk about that.
>> No, it's, um, absolutely true. And it's a real unfortunate situation that perhaps several decades of doing nothing, um, have meant that this something, uh, is necessarily at a greater cost than it might otherwise have been. Uh, we know that the, uh, lessening of the sanctions on, uh, Iran, meant that the Islamic regime had far more cash to be able to, uh, build up its terror proxies with, to build up its own ballistic missiles, and those that have been raining down not just on Israel, I appreciate, but, um, across the region, throughout all of these, uh, states that the Islamic regime has targeted. Now, um, civilians have been killed as a result, uh, of these offensive weapons developed by the Iranians on the basis of the cash injections, um, from the, um, abolition and, and reduction of the sanctions on, uh, the regime. So, there is a.
>> Country is not involved at all, you know, in attacking Iran. The, the United Arab Emirates, Dubai did not attack Iran, and suddenly they've been hit by, I don't know, hundreds of.
>> Saudi, indeed, uh, that was, uh, actively making the case in, in favor of the regime, we understand, in the context of these negotiations, until it was also targeted.
>> Right. Right. Right. Indeed. Look, one of the things that we're doing at UN Watch is trying to, um, respond to the UN's actions, which I have to say have been shocking, and, and it's hard to be shocked anymore, but still, they've been shocking since the war began this week. Um, numerous major UN accounts, whether it's, you know, on Twitter, UN, or whether it's UNICEF or UNESCO, or obviously many UN rapporteurs, the UN Human Rights Office have been putting out the same party line, which is condemning the US and Israel, making brief passing mention of Iran's attacks, which they immediately qualify as retaliatory to give it some legitimacy, that Iran is only responding, um, when they mention Iran, Iran's attacks, they don't mention who they hit. They don't mention that they hit the Emirates and Bahrain and Saudi and all these things, just in passing. Now, also Iran's retaliatory attacks. Um, and one of the things that they're doing, and sadly, there are others in, in America and the Democratic Party, which is, I think, is shameful, but the, the UN is focusing almost entirely, uh, on Iranian civilian casualties, as if that's somehow representative of the war, saying that, uh, a school that was hit, which seems to be, uh, hit by US forces in, in a mistake, and without mentioning that there have been well over 2,000, uh, strikes against targets, and sadly, in war, people get hit. Um, and they don't mention them. Maybe you could, uh, say a word or two about that. There seems to be this massive focus on this tragedy of a school. Again, we don't have independent information, relying on Iranian sources, but assuming that it's true, um, what's your sense of this focus on the school? Is it justified?
>> Well, it seems to me very much part and parcel of a much broader disinformation campaign, um, prompted by your statement. I'm just looking at the United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner statement that was put out, um, a couple of days ago, which, um, in fact says that the strikes are not targeting military, um, abstractions, they strike people. I mean, it was an extraordinary quote to have included, uh, given that what we have seen consistently from, uh, US Pentagon briefings is the focus on IRGC targets, on the ballistic missile launch sites, on command and control centers, on the leadership, the command and control, uh, of the Iranian armed forces, um, and nuclear sites included. The focus on the school, which immediately spread like wildfire, um, through the international media. Of course, the first allegation was that this was another example of Israel killing children. That has now perhaps, at least, been put to bed, in that it does, uh, transpire that it was the Americans that were striking this area. It's worth stressing that this was an IRGC base where this school, which was connected, as we understand it, to the IRGC, and that it was, um, that the children of, of IRGC commanders that were being educated there, was right next to that base. Um, the latest information does appear to be that the Americans believe it to have been, uh, a mistake, and have regretted it. But the notion that these strikes as a whole were in any way targeting anything other than military installations is fantastical, and to see that repeated in statements coming out of the UN is deeply, deeply troubling. Uh, I mentioned that in the context of an, uh, ongoing armed conflict, there is a framework of international law that governs it. Those principles of the laws of armed conflict include military necessity, distinction, proportionality, and precaution. And that means that the targets that Israel and the United States have been selecting, and, and by the looks of it, pretty meticulously selecting after months of planning these strikes, are military targets, and therefore legitimate targets in the context of this ongoing armed conflict. There's plainly distinction being made between civilians and combatants. They're in fact evacuation orders that have been issued now for Tehran, in an attempt, under the principle of precaution, to prevent civilian casualties, to enable these civilians to evacuate, uh, areas that are due to be targeted, uh, by the US and Israel going forward. Um, so it's topsy-turvy that we have, in fact, the United Nations and associated bodies running interference for the Islamic regime, promoting state TV propaganda. Um, and here, not only misapplying international law, but inverting it, to supposedly support the desperate, uh, dictatorial, uh, brutal regime that has been terrorizing both its people and the region. Um, it couldn't, I mean, you can't make it up. And if it wasn't true, uh, it would be perhaps, uh, funny, but in this context, I think it's deeply, deeply disturbing, and underpins all of the concerns that we have for the United Nations becoming a tool of the worst human rights violators of the modern era.
>> Indeed. Now, look, you've described how, uh, clearly the US and Israel in this operation, whereas, as I mentioned, I think it's more than 2,000 strikes by the US, this was like, as of a day ago, so it's probably way more now. Israel, maybe a thousand strikes. Um, and, and clearly the, the pattern is that they are discriminating between military and non-military, combatant and non-combatants, and they're trying to target, uh, you know, the regime. Now, um, but, but it seems like a school was hit, and UN accounts, I think it was UNICEF, issued a statement which was then repeated by, retweeted by, by the UN itself, saying that, um, the, the, the hit on the school was a grave violation. So, is it, can you say that that the, uh, US and Israel have done a very good job in doing thousands of strikes where they are, um, precisely hitting, uh, the, the targets they wanted to hit, but that the hit on the school, because people died, is necessarily a violation, and is, is the fact that people died, innocent people died in a school, does that mean that it's a grave violation of international law by the US?
>> Categorically not. International law is not effects-based. It is intention-based. So, the only way that such a grave violation would have occurred was if the United States, uh, deliberately and knowingly targeted a school, knowing that it wasn't a military target, and did so anyway. Um, now, uh, I think.
>> Which the UN is implying, because the UN, uh, actually, I think WHO put out, I think Dr. Tedros put out a tweet and he put hashtag not a target, not a target, saying that it was a target, that the school was deliberately the target.
>> Right? Uh, well, they have no basis upon which to know that, because they simply don't have access to the intelligence, uh, and that the, the strike approval processes that the United States, um, we, we know goes through. Like Israel, the adherence to the laws of armed conflict are baked into the procedures that approve strikes and then carry them out. So, you have military lawyers guiding, uh, soldiers, um, armed service personnel throughout these processes. Um, and that includes, of course, the proportionality analysis that has to be, uh, executed, which weighs up the anticipated military advantage of a strike against the expected civilian or collateral damage. Now, none of this is to say that mistakes aren't made in armed conflict, especially in the context of the fog of war. And what we've heard from the Americans so far, and I believe they are still investigating this incident, is that it may have been a strike by the US, and it may have been a mistake. Of course, prior to this, there were also suggestions that this may have been an an IRGC, um, attack gone wrong. The fact is, we simply don't know the answer yet. Um, but that's all an important clarification that even if, even if this was a mistake by the United States, it plainly wouldn't be a violation of the laws of armed conflict if the intention had been to comply with the laws, to target a military, um, installation, and to do so according to a proportionality analysis on the basis of the facts as they knew it at the time. That's why it's important to stress that international law is an intention-based analysis, not an effects-based analysis. But the separate, very worrying aspect of this is the way that it is covered, both in, in the international media and in the international diplomatic circles. Um, because we have, of course, you know, the real international law here being thrown out of the window, but also a great deal of misinformation being, uh, churned through and spat out at the earliest opportunity. And we've seen countless previous examples of false reports of a similar nature, including, of course, the, the famous Al-Ahli hospital strike of the 17th of October 2023. Um, where the international media and many politicians were, uh, berating Israel from having.
>> Israel bombs hospital. Israel bombs hospital, kills 500. Headline of the New York Times and maybe every other newspaper and NGO around the world.
>> Devastating effect on global levels of anti-semitism. Riots across the Middle East. I mean, broadcasters that published that false information, quite frankly, have blood on their hands because people died as a result. And now we know, and in fact, we would have known pretty, uh, soon after those initial false claims were broadcast, that this was in fact a Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket that fell short, hitting the hospital car park. But that sort of misreporting, and the glee with which it seems that so much of the international media seizes upon any opportunity to propagate this narrative of, uh, Israel, and now by extension, the United States, killing babies. That is a manifestation of the ancient blood libel in modern times. And it is frankly also a manifestation of a, of a mind virus that means that so many people are so enthusiastic to propagate this misinformation, perhaps because they will it to be true. I don't know. I cannot understand it from a psychological perspective. But plainly, the impact that this misinformation is having on ordinary people's ability to assess the good and evil of these recent developments is pretty devastating.
>> Indeed. You know, um, the, the weaponization of propaganda is scary. And, you know, one thing that we've been commenting on the past two days is that a UN Human Rights so-called expert named Francesca Albanese put up on her Twitter account, on her X.com account,
>> Fake images.
>> A fake image, and she was called out for it. She promoted someone named William Dalrymple, who's who's some kind of pro-Iran historian, and he put it up on his account. He was, he got community noted, which means that a sufficient amount of, of the community on X.com called it out as fake by giving, you know, numerous links to various AI, uh, sites that can detect a fake image. And you just look at it, you see that there are copies of, of framed photos of, of supposed dead children that are fake. And she was called out for it. She doesn't deny that it's fake, but her, her response was to say, "Well, it doesn't matter. The picture isn't the issue." So you have a UN rapporteur whose primary duty, the only reason that you have a UN rapporteur is the idea that someone at the United Nations is going to, as they say in the code of conduct, establish facts duly cross-checked, reliable and objective sources, credible sources, uh, verify, speak to the country concerned. She's doing none of that. She's just spreading false images, called out as a false image, doesn't deny it, and says, "Well, it's not the issue." I mean.
>> Hardly, hardly surprising though, is it? When this woman has been putting out for years, uh, fake information, uh, false allegations. She's not a lawyer, but she certainly consistently misstates the applicable international law. I mean, she has been peddling in some of the worst blood libels against the Jewish state, including this abhorrently false allegation of genocide. And just because it's, you know, gaining popular currency doesn't make it, uh, anywhere, uh, near the truth. So the fact that this has now manifested itself in, in fake images, and we, we're seeing a lot of AI-generated images, um, pervasive, uh, through, through a lot of the media reporting, and in particular, the, the social media reporting. Um, there were a number of, uh, images, of course, of a similar nature that were, uh, promoted, uh, throughout the Gaza war. Um, so this is not a new phenomenon. But the fact that, uh, I think the incredible work of UN Watch here has prompted so many, uh, international leaders to call for the removal of this liability from the framework of the United Nations, I, I think is, is a great credit to your organization and the very important work that you do.
>> Thank you. Yes, it was, it was important to see that finally, the UK publicly, in a response to a written question in the parliament, just the other day, uh, the UK, uh, revealed that they have, um, condemned Francesca Albanese's, uh, inflammatory comments. They've made complaints to the UN. They've called for an investigation. That's the first statement I'm aware of from the UK government on this issue. Of course, they're joining statements made by France, Germany, Canada, the US, the Netherlands, Argentina, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, among others, accusing her of violating the UN code of conduct, anti-semitism, uh, or Holocaust inversion by the, by Canada and other governments. So, um, there's, there's, there's momentum. And it's telling, though, that Albanesei, um, for months, when tens of thousands of protesters were being massacred in Iran, and she was asked, "Why are you silent? You, the so-called human rights official, the human rights expert, why are you silent?" She said, "Not in my mandate. Not in my mandate, to which I am rigorously devoted to and dedicated to. I can only speak about Palestinian issues."
>> Oh, the mandate is purely the demonization of Israel. That's that's plain.
>> It turns out, or the West and America, which for her sort of all of a peace. And, uh, and the moment that she had an opportunity to use Iranian suffering or the issue of Iran to attack is Israel or the US, she jumped on it. And she's not stopping. She's talking about the Iran issue. She's condemning the EU. She condemned the president of the EU Parliament, Roberto Metsola, who is rightly calling out the Islamic regime for its mass murder. Um, and, uh, she doesn't have a mandate for that, but doesn't care. Look, um, uh, this has been a terrific discussion. The issues could not be more important for the world. We're talking about one of the most dangerous regimes around the world, threatening, um, terrorism globally. Whether it's in Britain, uh, whether it's in the UK, whether it's in the US, or the streets of Europe, the Iranian regime has been behind it. We're engaged in very dramatic, uh, military operations right now. Uh, we're hearing every day accusations that international law are being violated. Finally, we get to hear from a real international law expert to parse through all the propaganda and the rhetoric and get to the facts. Natasha Heddorf, leading British barrister and international lawyer. We really appreciate you joining us here at UN Watch to, uh, make us a little bit wiser today.
>> Thank you so much, Hillel Neuer. It's great to be with you.
>> Thank you.