It's an empirical fact. You know, it is occupied territory and the fourth Geneva Convention should apply and do apply, but the United States is not recognizing that that legal reality and is therefore attempting to completely shred international law.

So you make this point in an article that you wrote at your substack called to save Gaza and vote the genocide convention.

You point out that there have been

a number of countries, including South Africa, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Djibouti, et cetera, that have moved

for the international criminal court to prosecute Israeli officials. But all of the countries that have

used the word genocide called out Israel for enacting genocide in Gaza have yet to invoke the genocide convention specifically,

and you have a theory as to why that might be the case.

Yeah. Well, a lot of these countries have gone to the International Criminal Court.

International Criminal Court has basically done the bidding of the U.S. and Israel in the many

years of its existence. it has proven to be

a dead end, at least so far. The current barrister made a little bit of noise that he might do

the right thing, but he just went to Israel and he didn't go to Gaza. So he's a British barrister,

and once again, it seems that the International Criminal Court

isn't going to do its alleged job.

It goes after African dictators and it goes after Putin.

It doesn't go after Israel.

It doesn't go after NATO.

It doesn't go after the United States, no matter what they do.

There's another legal avenue, which is, as you say, invoking the genocide convention,

which Israel is a party to.

It has signed that, unlike the International Criminal Court, unlike a lot of other international documents, it has signed the genocide convention.

Moreover, there's an article in the genocide convention that says that any party that's a signer to it can

...