Israeli Spokesperson Gets Torn Apart In Interview

Last week, South Africa argued at the International Court of Justice that there is genocidal intent behind Israel's actions in Gaza. Their case included a lengthy dossier of genocidal statements made by the Israeli officials. But while the ICJ case was being heard, Israeli government spokesperson Elon Levy was in the UK busily defending the indefensible. And for once, Britain's journalists seemed to be doing their job. On Newsnight, Victoria Derbyshire put some of Israel's genocidal statements to him. This is your president. It's an entire nation out there that's responsible. He's referring to Gazans. Have a look at this. The next one. We are now actually rolling out the Gaza Nakba. Nakba, as people know, is a term for catastrophe. After the 1948 war, a war used by Palestinians about ethnic cleansing. And we all have one common goal, erasing the Gaza Strip from the face of the earth. Can you see why some people believe that you absolutely don't want Palestinians any longer in Gaza? We think we have been very clear, both in word and in deed. In those words? Well, Mr. Vachouri does not make decisions on security matters in Israel. We think we've been very clear, both in word and in deed, that the people of Gaza are not our enemy. Our enemy is the Hamas regime. And that is why we have gone further than any army in the history of the world to try to get civilians out of harm's way. Now, we just have the form I'm going to bring you back to the words of those politicians, if I may. We're now actually rolling out the Gaza Nakba. Nakba, the Palestinian term for ethnic cleansing. Those are the words of a government minister in your government. Well, let's talk about a little bit of historical context, what the Palestinians refer to as the Nakba. I'm just asking you about those words. No, so I want to talk about that word Nakba. When the Palestinians use the word Nakba, they are referring to the consequences of the decision in 1948 to try to scuttle the creation of a Jewish state. And under the UN General Assembly resolution, they declared war in 1948. That war of annihilation did not go their way. And there were consequences as a result. And how is that relevant to what your government minister has said now? Because what he is saying is, we want to get rid of these people. No, we do not want to get rid of these people. We have been very clear in word and in deed as a government, and as the prime minister and the defence minister have said, that we urge civilians to get to safety in the safe zone. There were consequences as a result. Right. So that's how he's talking about the Nakba. Right. The Nakba, so the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, very, very well documented, including by historians such as Benny Morris, by Ilhan Pape. And they show, you know, definitive proof that people were driven from their homes never to return. Right. And he's saying, well, that was just a consequence of their actions, a consequence of the Arab states not being happy to have a majority Arab place, Palestine, a majority Arab country being divided. Right. You can say what you like about that. I don't think it's unreasonable to oppose a state, a majority Arab state being divided and given to another people. But there we are. People disagree on that. What's not the case is that any kind of pretext like that would justify ethnic cleansing. The spokesperson there seems to be suggesting, well, there were consequences as a result. Right. And that seems to be how they're thinking about this. Right. Hamas committed some atrocities on October the 7th, and there are some consequences as a result. If that involves the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, so be it. And we had a bunch of senior politicians there calling for genocide. And it's true, being shown to the spokesperson. Sorry. And it's true. Israeli politicians have also said that they aren't targeting civilians in Gaza. So who should we believe? The ones that say that we are, or the ones that say that we aren't? Well, the court will want to incess not just the sum of the statements made by Israeli politicians, but rather what kind of atmosphere those statements have created. Now, their test will be this. What did the Israeli public and particularly soldiers understand by the words used by Israeli politicians when they are making what look like genocidal statements? Now, that's why South Africa presented evidence like this. So that footage shot by an Israeli journalist showed a group of IDF soldiers dancing and chanting while holding automatic weapons. What are they saying? They make reference to the quote, seed of Amalek, which needs to be wiped off. Now that echoes the biblical reference that Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu made at the start of the war. And they also say, quote, there are no uninvolved civilians. In other words, everyone's a target. And that's very similar to what the Israeli president had said. Now, on Channel 4 News, Krishnan Guru-Murti confronted Levy with that piece of evidence. How do you explain that video that was played in courts yesterday of Israeli soldiers singing about Amalek and singing about the fact that there were no innocent civilians? Krishnan, in every war, soldiers may perform things for social media that have absolutely nothing to do with the declared goals of this war. And everyone at every level understands that this goal, and again, you keep going back to this Amalek reference, refers to the destruction of Hamas. It refers to the destruction of the terrorist organization. It refers to the destruction of the terrorist organization. But in that video, we see them chanting about The prime minister has been clear, and the defense minister, and the war cabinet, and all those who make decisions, including the chief of staff and all the senior generals, that our war is a war against Hamas and not the Palestinian people. So were those soldiers wrong? Was that chanting wrong? Had a senior officer or a politician come in, would they have said, stop that, that's wrong? I'm not familiar with the particular video. I didn't watch all of it. The video that was played in court yesterday? I haven't watched that particular video. I was on a flight from Tel Aviv yesterday during the proceedings. But of course, if soldiers say things that are not in accordance with the military goals of the campaign, that is not acceptable. And the army has already disciplined soldiers on occasions when they have deviated from the discipline and the standards that we uphold. Now, of course, he's seen that video. We've all seen that video. And of course, the soldiers feel totally empowered to chant those things. And then we presume behave accordingly, right? The Amalek reference was made by Israel's prime minister. It was Israel's president who said a whole nation is responsible for October the 7th. Now, it doesn't get higher than that, right? You can't say, well, this was just, this was a, it might've been a cabinet member, but he's not that powerful. This was the president and the prime minister saying exactly what is being repeated by those soldiers. So, Elon Levy's defense of Israel doesn't stack up. But will the judges at the International Court of Justice agree? Well, we expect to hear a verdict on South Africa's application for a provisional order in the coming weeks. But whatever they decide, it's not actually clear how Israel would respond. Now, on the News Agents podcast, Lewis Goodall asked Elon Levy this. If the ICJ were to rule against you in the preliminary round, the actual eventual conclusions may take many years, but in terms of their preliminary assessments, will you comply with their stipulations? We fully expect the ICJ to throw out this spurious claim. No, but if they don't, will you comply? I'm not going to answer absurd hypotheticals because- It's not an absurd hypothetical, it's either yes or no. Please be happy. Because when you have parents sitting in that courtroom whose children were abducted and being held as hostages, the idea that an International Court of Justice that is supposed to uphold international law might actually order those parents to stop fighting to bring back their children is an absurd hypothetical. You'll adhere to a court judgment if they rule your way. It's an absurd hypothetical. What kind of kangaroo court would that be? It's an absurd hypothetical. Why are you even signatories to the convention if you are unwilling to commit to abide by the means by which that convention is policed and enforced? What is the point? Lewis, the state of Israel was one of the first signatories to the genocide convention. And so I would have thought that the state of Israel would be the first to say that they would want to see that that court stipulations are adhered to for precisely the reason you are referring to. The state of Israel would like to see international law being applied fairly, understanding that to the extent- In the way that Israel wants. In a way that understands that on October 7th, we were the victims of an act of genocide. Now Elon Levy might be reluctant to say Israel will ignore the ICJ's verdict if it goes against them, although he's very much intimating in that direction. But as we've already said on this show, his prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has been less coy saying on Twitter that not even the Hague would stop them achieving victory. Ash, does he believe what he's saying? I mean, the things that were kind of the most obvious lies there were him saying, I haven't seen that. You know, I haven't heard that. I haven't heard them say that. These people are marginal. They're in the cabinet. And then many of the things said by the president and the prime minister, right? There is clearly genocidal intent being spoken by people in the highest positions of power in Israel. It's clearly being repeated by soldiers on the ground. And as the South African case is making clear, that is being enacted on the ground. What did you make of those interviews there? So I was actually talking with Stephen, Stephen Methven, our lovely researcher, who I believe is sitting kind of opposite you and towards the right about this, when we were scripting Friday's show. And we were talking about Elon Levy and we were trying to make sense of how somebody can tour the new studios of the world saying things which are not true, which are verifiably false and do so in a manner which seems completely unruffled. And the only way in which I can make sense of it, and this is, of course, totally conjecture on my part, is that he's an extremely politically motivated individual. It's not that he sincerely believes the things that he's saying, but he sincerely believes in the cause, which means that he's got to participate on a battlefield of his own, which is media and communications. Because if you truly believed that the only way in which Jewish people could be safe and secure would be to have a nation of their own, that that nation, sorry if that means ethnically cleansing the people who were already there, sorry if that means denying them statehood, sovereignty and self-determination, but our need is greater than theirs or more important than theirs. If you truly believe those things, it wouldn't then be all that difficult to say that your contribution to that project would be defending what I think is utterly indefensible, denying the truth in front of your very eyes and providing communications cover or at least producing confusion in order to make it easier for that state to continue its objectives of ethnic cleansing and having total domination of the land between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea. I think that's kind of obvious and that's something which, you know, I can almost understand. Doesn't mean I think it's right, but I can understand that if you're an incredibly politically motivated individual, it wouldn't actually be that difficult, it wouldn't actually be that difficult because you're totally convinced that you're correct. There is one other thing that I'd like to add and that's about his characterization of the Nakba as being a result of the Palestinians' failure to make peace. Firstly, that is just historically false. The events which led up to the Nakba include the Arab revolt in the 1930s, which was brutally put down with help from the British, who also trained and armed Zionist militias. Now, those Zionist militias also then formed a part of the militias which carried out the massacres which led up to the Nakba, which resulted in the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. So just on a point of historical fact, he's wrong. Also the choice of emphasis, I think is completely wrong because to take it away from historical dates and facts of this massacre and this militia, let me put it this way. If people came to your house one day and they had guns and they had grenades and they had bombs and they said, this is our house now, but don't worry, we're very magnanimous. You can live in the attic or in the basement. If you want to travel between the attic and the basement, you will be subject to humiliating checks, strip searches. Some of you may be detained and also if I find you in the kitchen, I will kill you. Would you look on those people with kindness? Would you think that they've got your best interests at heart? Would you think that the partition arrangement which allowed you to live in the basement or the attic where previously you had the whole house is a fair arrangement? No, you wouldn't. Would you accept the characterization of being a terrorist or a warmonger if you wanted to fight back against a situation which has forced you into captivity in your own basement or your own attic? No, you wouldn't accept that characterization. And yet that's exactly the way we look at the history of Israel and Palestine. We look at people who were booted out of their own homes, booted out of their own lands, and then they're forced into the territorial minority, the smaller part of the land and we go, oh, these bad people, they don't want to make peace with the other people who've got the living room, the kitchen, the bedrooms and the bathroom. I mean, when you spell it out like that, it's ridiculous, but that's precisely the truth that Elon Levy, and it's not just him, it's many people who sort of participate in Israel's communications for. That's precisely the truth that they're trying to obscure.