Welcome to my bonus conference talk, Decorators in Death. I'm Marco. I'm from Germany, specifically Bavaria, where people sometimes look like this. I am the founder of Simplabs. We're a web engineering consultancy with digital products for companies around the world. And we also have teams to be more effective with Ember, deliver better quality in a shorter time, maybe, and just sort of to get the most out of Ember. And you might know us from our open source work.  We also sponsor the Ember project as such, with people writing for the Ember times. For example, we did a lot of work on the website. We have people on the learning team and so on. And we co-organize EmberFest, which is Europe's Ember conference, obviously. And my notes here, I brought stickers. I didn't actually bring them, obviously. I think I sent 800 to Portland, which I don't know. Maybe now in the Tildor office. And maybe we can distribute them some other way. But here's how the sticker looks for this year and the dates for this year are going to be October 15, 16. We don't actually say what the host city of the conference is. As every year, we have this sticker with a background that gives some visual hints on the location.  I think it worked pretty well in the last years. And let's see whether somebody can guess this year's host city. We will, of course, reveal it soon. But I guess at the moment, it's not even clear whether everybody will be able to travel anywhere in Europe in mid-October. Hopefully, yes, but we will hold off a bit until the situation smooths a bit more. So I have some opening story for the talk, which doesn't really work anymore. I'm still going to do it because I couldn't really come up with anything better. So this is actually, like I said in the beginning, it's the first time I speak at EmberCon. And the joke that I want to make is that it's the first time that I'm speaking and I almost didn't make it to Portland. Now, of course, I actually didn't make it to Portland, but let's sort of go through the story. Because besides corona, there's actually another reason why I would almost not have made it to Portland if corona hadn't happened at all. And that has to do with this thing, the electronic system for travel authorization, short ESTA, which is what all of the non-Americans or Europeans are sort of, I don't really know to who it applies. But everybody from Europe has to sort of go through this system sort of to register with their passport number and so on before they can go to the US, right? And then that gets approved. And then you can go into the country without a visa. And in order to go through this, you have to answer all kinds of questions. One question is, have you ever violated any law related to possessing, using, or distributing illegal drugs, which I don't know, this might be the one where like many people would actually lie, I guess. There's also other questions, like, do you seek to engage in or have you ever engaged in terrorist activities, espionage, sabotage, or genocide, which I guess, or hope most people can actually honestly answer negatively, right? But there's also a new question since I think summer last year, and that is, have you traveled to or been present in Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, so on and so on after 2011, after March 2011? And the problem is, here's a picture of me in North Korea in 2012.  And I should say, this is not actually sort of me expressing my support for the regime. It's just something that you're sort of expected to do when you're there. So I answered that new question honestly and not surprisingly, my travel to the US was not authorized. So now I need to get a visa, which is actually a good thing because now I have a 10 year visa I don't have to go through Esther anymore. And somebody told me I would have been able to sort of add immigration, take like a faster lane or so, but I might find that out next year. And getting the visa was really easy. The person at the embassy found it pretty convincing that I went to North Korea for a vacation. But yeah, having the visa doesn't help me now, of course. And of course, it's not really up to me sort of to judge US policy, but I'm not sure it's fair that I need a visa because I have been to North Korea once because here's me and my guide in North Korea that's Mr. Kim, obviously in North Korea you cannot do anything without a guide. And the guide is not actually a guide, it's more like a person that's watching you. And they are being watched themselves, right? But the thing is, I don't seem to be the only one maintaining relatively close relationships with North Koreans, right? So it seems a bit like there's different rules for different people here. Although I will admit that I did not fall in love with Mr. Kim over beautiful letters, but just over beers as people do. Yeah, it's like maybe a bit of double standards here. So anyway, I thought this might be a good opening story for the talk. Now, as I said, sort of it doesn't work anymore really because now I'm sitting here in Munich, but having added that story to the talk, I thought like maybe there's a way sort of connecting the talks, the main topic which is obviously not North Korea, but JavaScript decorators, they're connecting the two topics a bit, right? And having sort of a JavaScript decorator slash North Korea talk. And then I was thinking about how I could do that. And the first thought I had is just this statement, which sounds pretty nice, right? Decorators are the North Korea of JavaScript, but what does that even mean, right? It's basically just a budget statement. That sounds very good, but it means nothing. So unfortunately, there will be no more North Korea content in this talk just because I couldn't find a proper way to get it in, but back to the topic. And I wanna start with some theories. So the theory behind something like JavaScript decorators is attribute oriented programming. And the idea behind attribute oriented programming is that it is a program level marking technique that allows you to mark elements in your program to indicate that they maintain specific, application specific or domain specific semantics without leaking all of the details. So those semantics into your core logic, so to say, which then increases abstraction and reduces complexity, right? And many languages have had similar concepts for quite some time. For example, in Java, you have attributes like deprecated which allows you to mark a specific thing in your code, like a class here as deprecated. Of course, you could also do more sophisticated stuff. So here's an example from Hibernate which is a very popular object relational method in Java. And here you see we use the entity attribute and the table attribute, ID attribute and so on to sort of define how the mapping from instances of the employee class to a particular data based table should work or other way around as well, of course. But the thing here is we're not leaking any of the details like any of the sort of internal mechanisms of this mapping into the application core, right? We keep it relatively clean because we just sort of attribute the elements with the respective attributes without sort of revealing how those work internally. This concept doesn't only exist in Java though, so it's also a similar concept in .NET. So here, for example, we're using JSON property attributes to define how instances of a particular class in this case, the API error class are serialized to JSON. And again, without leaking any of the details of the serialization process sort of into our application code, when we compare this to what we have in Octane, then it's obviously similar, right? So here we use the track decorator to mark the count property as track. So the template we ran was when it changes and we use the action decorator to make the increment and decrement methods work as actions. So again, without leaking any of the details of these decorators or the concepts behind them into our application code, right? We just say the count property should be tracked. We don't care about how that works internally or what tracking even means sort of. That's not a concern of our application, but that's a framework concern. So there's no point sort of leaking any of the details of the concept of tracking or the concept of making a method available as an action or work as an action into our application code. So we wanna hide all of that and we do hide all of it behind that decorator. So this is how JavaScript decorators fit in to sort of the general concept of attribute oriented programming. So you add attributes to the code to express additional semantics while hiding all of the details. But later we will see there's actually a fundamental difference between JavaScript decorators and attributes in other languages. We will look into that more detail later sort of on the surface it's sort of the same thing and it's meant to serve the same purpose. The insights sort of are a bit different, but for now we can ignore that. So then you might ask, are decorators ready for use? And the answer is it's complicated unfortunately. And again, I wanna share some background here. So as most of you know, or everybody presumably TC39 is the group that defines the ECMEL script standard and thus JavaScript. It's an international group of people with various backgrounds sort of that represent different interest groups like larger companies, browser makers and so on, but also sort of the viewpoint of the average JavaScript developer sort of which I think was one of the main motivations for you that cuts like obviously, as you know, one of the sort of inventors of EMBA to join TC39 because I think that his motivation sort of was to make sure that the average JavaScript developer's viewpoint sort of was recognized in TC39 as well and not only the interests of larger companies or browser makers because sometimes those could be pretty different of course. So that group of international people discusses ideas for additions and changes to the spec or I guess in reality it's really additions only because you cannot change anything in JavaScript and it's basically an additive spec because changing anything would break existing code and websites. So each new thing that they discuss goes through five stages. In stage zero, the thing is basically just an idea for a new language feature. So anybody could have that idea and then when you find a TC39 member to bring it to the group, then it would get discussed there. At that point, the idea would usually be pretty vague. There's no indication of whether it'll go forward at all or maybe it's being discussed for five minutes and then immediately rejected for some reason or whatever. The next stage then is stage one where you have a written proposal with proper description, examples and so on, discussions of semantics and there's a TC39 member that champions the idea sort of or the proposal. So stage one means that TC39 is willing to examine, discuss and contribute to the proposal but there are still major changes to be expected. At that point, it's still relatively vague and there's no indication of whether it'll make it into the spec eventually or if it makes it, whether that's gonna be a very different form maybe. But if it's not rejected, then the next stage would be stage two. At that stage, the proposal must have a formal syntax definition, description should be complete, there should be or there need to be, I think, two experimental implementations. One will usually be better unless the feature cannot be transpired to current JavaScript. I think that was the case with proxies because there's no way to make the underlying mechanism of proxies work with current JavaScript. Obviously, experimental implementations can of course be in browser service, well behind feature flex or whatever. At stage two, a proposal can still be rejected, though it's relatively far in the process but there's still no guarantee it'll make it. The next stage then is stage three at which point the spec text needs to be complete, there need to be two fully compliant implementations, again, one of them would usually be better. And at this point, the proposal can be expected to be added to the spec and changes should only be made when critical issues occur. And that's why stage three is sort of the important stage, because at stage three, you can expect the thing to be added to the spec eventually in only slightly modified form. So stage three proposals are pretty okay to use in general. Why everything before or below stage three is not really okay to be used because there's no guarantee it will actually make it to the spec and there's no guarantee that if it makes it to the spec it will be in its current form sort of, right? So yeah, stage three is the one that you wanna keep in mind because that's sort of when you're building on relatively solid ground sort of if you're using something in stage three. The next stage is then stage four which is basically just like a stage that something goes into while it's sort of waiting to be added but it's already decided that it will be added, right? So of course, now the question is where are we with JavaScript decorators? And first problem is there's not one but actually two proposals. Second problem is one is in stage one and the other is in stage two. And obviously that means that none of them is final or complete, right? The stage one proposal is basically deprecated sort of that's not going to be continued. And the stage one, the stage two proposal is in stage two which means it's not done, right? It might still change relatively significantly. So let's look at some more details of those two proposals. First of all, the stage one proposal which basically defines decorators as simple functions, right? You would just write function that receives the element that you're decorating and then you can modify the element which is very simple, right? But it has major implications with respect to performance because you're actually modifying the class or the method or the property or whatever. So you're changing the shape of things sort of which is always very bad for browser engines to optimize, right? So there are major performance implications. There are also major tooling implications because you cannot actually statically analyze those decorators, right? If a class is decorated with a stage one decorator you cannot really know what that decorator does. So you might not know for sure which methods that class has, right? Or whether the methods are actually as you see them in the class body or whether the decorator does modify them and then like the actual methods on instances or on the prototype will actually be different from what you're seeing, right? So that's of course a major problem as well in particular for tooling, right? So the stage two proposal solves the performance and tooling problems by basically defining decorators as first class language elements and sort of limiting them much more but it's not ready yet. They're made the changes to be expected. So it's not even really clear how exactly that's going to look, right? So coming back to my previous slide here in reality, decorators are not the North Korea of JavaScript but sort of the anti-North Korea of JavaScript because nothing is regulated and everybody can do what they want basically because there is no official regulation or specification. So the question is, what do we do? The old thing is deprecated and the new thing is not ready but in EMBA we need something that works well with native classes because the old macro methods that we've been using for computer properties for example and so on they don't really work well with native classes. You have a bunch of options using them with native classes. So it's not impossible to use them. I think there might be some edge cases whether actually behave differently but it's not impossible to use them. It's just not nice at all. So for example, if you had a person class with a first name and last name and by the way, all those examples are I think taken from the IFC that I think Melanie Sumner wrote I'm not 100% sure but the examples have her name obviously so let's just assume she wrote it. So if you have a person class here with a first name and last name and you wanna define the typical full name computer property, right? Like full name must be sort of the hello world of computer properties I guess. Then with native class you could define the class first and then on the prototype define the computer property, right? Which is obviously not what you actually wanna do in your application. The alternative is you sort of mix like new native classes and the old M object model and you define the class as an extension of sort of an anonymous class here that where you use the old way sort of extending from M object this works but it's obviously also not really nice, right? The best solution is obviously with decorators, right? Where you just define a proper native class with two fields and one getter and you just decorate the getter with the computed decorator, yeah, right? So the question is how do we get that when the decorator's proposal is not ready really? And the answer is we just stick with the stage one proposal for now. This is what the TCF 39 Champion Group recommends because although the specification is not ready decorators are already widely used in the JavaScript community and EMBA is actually relatively late to the party here. So products like Angular also have used decorators for years now. So there's a lot of pressure and also there's commitment I think from TC 39 to make the final decorator proposal so that it will allow to do the to make the final decorator proposal so that it will allow for doing the same things with decorators that you can also do with stage one decorators. So that means you will very likely not have to change your usages of decorators, right? The decorators will only have to change internally to solve the performance and tooling problems but that also means that you do not want to write your own decorators here because why sort of, why usages of decorators will not have to change, the internals of decorators will change a lot potentially. So when writing decorators, you're building on pretty unstable ground, right? If you only use the decorators that EMBA provides, then obviously EMBA sort of shields you from all of the internal changes that might or will probably have to be made at some point. The computer decorator and the track decorator will continue to work the same way that will just be implemented in a very different way internally. One thing though is that in app code, you would usually, but there's usually not such good use cases for decorators anyway because as we saw in the beginning, the purpose of a decorator is sort of making something available while hiding all of the details of that, right? Which is usually not something that you wanna do in an application, right? Because in an application, you don't wanna sort of hide parts of the code from the engineer because all of your application code as a whole sort of is being maintained by your project team and so on. So you don't wanna introduce black boxes, right? It is however, of course, something that has a lot of value for frameworks like EMBA or maybe even for add-ons and understanding what decorators do, how they work, what they can do, what they can't do sort of gives you a better mental model of your application, of course, which is also the reason why I get this talk. So let's look at the stage one proposal in more detail. We will basically ignore the stage two proposal for now because it's unclear how it's going to work eventually. So we will focus on the stage one proposal. And like I said, the stage one proposal defines decorators as simple functions that modify the element that they're decorating. And that is also coming back to a previous point. That is that main difference between JavaScript decorators and attributes in Java.net because why attributes in Java.net only add metadata sort of to the elements that they're attributing, JavaScript decorators actually modify these elements, right? So with a JavaScript decorator, you could actually modify a class, for example, where why an attribute in .net will only add metadata to that class so that at runtime you could reflect over that metadata and sort of do certain things then, right? So that might of course be different in the stage two proposal, but for now that's really the main difference that a JavaScript decorator will actually modify the thing that it is decorating. And doing that though is relatively simple. There's basically two cases. That's the case where you are decorating a class. And in that case, the decorator is a simple function that receives the class constructor as its argument. You could also of course decorate a class member in which case the arguments for that are the prototype, the name of the member and property descriptor for the property you are decorating. And I wanna show you some concrete examples to make that a bit clearer. I have created a little example app so you can find all of the code on Gitter. And let's look at the first one. So here we have a simple mbar out, right? We just load some data from an API endpoint. We don't care about the details of course. And now let's assume we wanna benchmark that, right? We wanna like have something in place that allows us to benchmark the execution time and maybe report it somewhere or whatever. But of course we don't wanna sort of have all of the benchmarking code as such in the raw, right? We wanna hide that because it's not relevant to the application really, right? Let's say we wanna like make a benchmarking add-on or whatever. So a good way to do that of course is to use a decorator as we're doing here, right? We're just importing that as any other thing sort of in JavaScript and then we're decorating the model method. And as I said, before the decorator using the stage one, proposal the decorator is just a simple function that takes the prototype, the property name and the property descriptor for the property we're decorating as arguments. And what we're doing here is we're simply remembering the original value of the property descriptor which is the original implementation of that method. And then we replace it with a wrapper, right? And here what we're doing is we stop the time when we start execution, then we call the original method. We stop the time when that ends and we lock that to the console. In reality you might be logging into some sort of API or whatever and then we return the result that we got from the original method, right? So we do not change the original method. We also don't change the signature of the method because the method that we are replacing the original method has the same signature, right? We're just adding our stuff sort of before and after the original method. And that also means of course that the original model method doesn't even have to know that it is being benchmarked or that it is like wrapped with something else, right? Which is the point of the decorator, of course. Another example is this one here. So let's assume besides benchmarking the model method we also wanna require users to be logged in to have access to that route at all. And by the way, this is a sneak preview sort of of what a version of EmmerSimploth which we had simplified to maintain without Mixins can't look like, right? You can use Mixins with native classes like relatively easily in Ember but it's not really great, right? So in the current version of EmmerSimploth you would just mix in the authenticated route Mixin into this route that you're defining here. But with the decorator it's even a bit nicer and sort of has a more modern look as well. So what we do here is we just import the authenticated decorator and apply it to the route class, right? And again, the decorator is a simple function that takes the class constructor as an argument and we do a similar thing here to what we did before. We remember sort of the original implementation of the classes before model method and then we replace it with our own method and what we do in that method is we get a session or the session service. We check whether the user is logged in. If it's not the case, we just transition them somewhere else. In this case here to index would probably make more sense to transition them to the login route. And if they are logged in and there's an original implementation of before model we just call that, right? So again, we are adding sort of relatively complex logic with a very simple mechanism and we are hiding all of the details. We don't change the original before model method. So I think this is a very nice example for how decorators are actually a pretty good way of making functionality in add-ons available for EMBA applications. Obviously those examples are sort of made up. They don't really have any sort of real value. It's just for illustration purposes here. So I also want to look at two examples from EMBA itself. And if we look at this piece of code here from previously, again with component that has a track property called count and then two methods that we decorate with the action decorator. So we can actually call them as actions from the template. So how does this work? And first of all, let's look at the tracked decorator. And this is not really the code from the glimmer code base. It's sort of the essence of the code, right? But here you see that we have a function here that takes the prototype, the property name and the property descriptor as arguments, right? Because it's a stage one decorator applied to a class member. And what it does is a very similar thing to what we saw before. It replaces the original property with in this case here a getter and a setter. We can ignore the getter, that's not so interesting, but the thing of course about track properties is that whenever a tracked property is modified, then the template re-renders, right? And you see how that works here in the setter where whenever the property is set, the property to change callback will be called, which is sort of an internal callback in glimmer, which sort of triggers a re-render, right? So that is basically how the tracked decorator in side of glimmer works. It just replaces your original property with sort of a wrapper property that will make sure that whenever the property is set, an internal callback sort of in glimmer is called, which will then trigger a re-render. Next, let's look at action. And as you all know, the main thing about actions is that they are closures that are already sort of pre-bound to the correct context, right? So you can just call them as a function and they will be running with the correct, this binding sort of, right? So basically, besides a bunch of other things, like you see the dotted lines here basically are like relatively big parts of the actual code that are left out here, but sort of one of the main things that the action decorator does is it just, it binds the method you're decorating and assigns it to a hash of actions, right? And that allows you then to use like the method as an action from the template. So this is decorators in Ember. They are a great way for abstracting logic that is non-essential to your application, but that is maybe only essential for the framework or only essential for some other system sort of you're using. But there's no stable spec, which means you don't want to write your own unless you have lots of time and lots of willingness sort of to potentially rewrite lots of the internals of the decorators you're writing. And that's all that I have. Thanks. Unfortunately, I can't take questions. Unfortunately, I can also not talk to people sort of after the talk or in breaks or whatever, but we'll repeat all of that I guess next year in Portland or at Ember Fest in Europe this year. Thank you, bye-bye.


Now a lot of people say how they believe in energies, they believe in Shakti. It's not enough to just believe in energies, it's important to understand them.  Now take for example the concept of the cycle of life and death. Now we know that creation and destruction has to take place in an unceasing and constant cycle for life to be maintained and that even if one of the two, either creation or destruction is stopped, even for the briefest time, then life as we know it will be wiped out of existence. And we generally refer to this Shakti as Shiva and Parvati, Parvati as Mother Earth who creates everything and Shiva is the destroyer who will bring everything to an end at the end of time. But this cycle of life and death, this creation and destruction is not just about the bigger picture of somebody being born and somebody dying, it's much more immediate than that. It takes place in our body every day at all times. According to the Sushrut Samita, the Sushrut Samita is, we believe, the first book on Ayurveda and it's dated to about the 6th or maybe the 5th century BC. And according to the Sushrut Samita, the upper part of the body, which is the respiratory organs, the lungs etc., are the Matrika Shakti, the creative metabolism, the Shakti or the energy of Parvati. The lower part of the body, the intestines etc., are the Pitrika Shakti, the Shakti of Shiva, the destructive metabolism. This is where food is taken to be broken down, this is where the digestive process takes place. And it tells you that if for any reason the Pitrika Shakti is blocked, that your intestines, the digestive process gets blocked, the heat will build up to a great extent in your body and this will lead to fever and sickness. Now the thing is, we all know this, but we forget that this is actually a very, very powerful Shakti. It is literally the Shakti of creation and destruction that exists within us and so we don't really take the time to give it that kind of importance that it should have. We don't give it enough time and understanding to balance it out. So this week, this is what I would like you to do. I want you to really concentrate on understanding how the energies move through your body, what is the Shakti sitting and what is the impact that it is having on you? Is it in sync, the upper half and the lower half of your body or are you paying more attention to one and less to the other? Are you spending more time building up your pecs and not really worrying about what's happening to your core or are you focusing on your core and not worrying about the upper part of your body? This week, I want you to try and find a balance in your Shaktis because it is this balance that will ultimately lead to your good health, both mentally as well as physically.


Okay, so we're going to demonstrate how to use paraffin today, okay? So I just opened this, I took some out, and now I want, there was a seal around it, now I want to reseal it back up so it doesn't get in water or anything in it. So I take scissors, take the paraffin, which is this stuff, actually cut off a little bit, more than what I needed, but whatever. So then I'll hold my finger, place one part of it there, hold my finger, and then just pull it around, like that, and like that, and like that, okay? And it makes pretty much, you can see, like a tight seal around the cap, okay? So that no water, moisture, or anything can get in to it, and so it won't get in all the way, okay? So it'll stay good.


o'r llu'r Llywodraeth Cymru, o'r gweithio gyda'r gweithio'r gwasanaethau i gynhyrchu'r gweithio, ac o'r bydwch gyrdwch ei ddigonwch. Mae'r ddweud ei ddweud o ddweud o'r rei'r gweithio, a'r wneud oed yn gallu gwneud. Mae'r cwntecau gyda'r cyfnodau cydweithreduol, i ddweud y ffordd o'r cyfnodau, As it has unfolded, particularly the 7th of October, is that of an armed conflict, a heavily armed militia, and its allies precipitated egregious hostilities and the consequences lie everywhere. Point is this, armed conflict, even when fully justified and conducted lawfully, is brutal and costs lives, particularly when the militia in question specifically targets civilians and civilian facilities and when it is patently unconcerned about causing civilian casualties on its own side. The conflict is also regulated by law, the rules and principles of international humanitarian law under the Hague regulations, the Geneva conventions of 1949 and customary international law. These are well developed and applicable and are fully respected by Israel. Such rules cover permitted activities and international humanitarian law where civilian damage and loss always to be regretted are caused in the legitimate pursuit of military objectives through to the violation of the law, engraved breaches of legitimate conventions and up to war crimes and crimes against humanity. However, the only category before this court is genocide. Not every conflict is genocidal. The crime of genocide in international law and under the genocide convention in international law is a uniquely malicious manifestation. It stands alone amongst the violations of international law as the epitome and zenith of evil. It has been described correctly as the crime of crimes, the ultimate in wickedness. Indeed, the court itself emphasised in its order of the 2nd of June 1999 that the threat or use of force cannot in itself constitute an act of genocide within the meaning of article two of the Geneva Convention and particularly instant bombing as lacking the element of intent in the circumstances to put it another way. If claims of genocide were to become the common currency of our conflict whenever and wherever that occurred, the essence of this crime would be diluted and lost. I turn now to the question of the primary facial jurisdiction of the court in the matter before us. Article nine of the genocide convention to which both states are parties without reservation makes the court's jurisdiction conditional on the existence of a dispute relating to the interpretation application or fulfilment of the convention and the relevant date for determining the existence of such a dispute is the date on which the application is submitted to the court. Whether or not a dispute in these terms exists at the time of the filing of the application is a matter for objective determination by the court. It is a matter of substance and not a question of form or procedure. The court will take into account in particular any statements or documents exchanged between the parties as well as any exchanges made in multilateral settings, the court has said. The key point here is the use of the term exchange between the parties. Unilateral assertion does not suffice. There needs to be some element of engagement between the parties. The element of interchange and bilateral interaction is required. A dispute is a reciprocal phenomenon. This point has been consistently noted by the court. For example, the court reaffirmed in the Mayan Mar case the view that it had expressed earlier that in order for a dispute in the sense of article nine to exist, it must be shown that the claim of one party is positively opposed by the other. The court further referred in the Marshall Islands cases to the need that the respondent should not be deprived of the opportunity to react before the institution of proceedings to the claim made against its own conduct. Where a state makes an assertion concerning the conduct of another state, it must thus give the latter a reasonable opportunity to respond before resorting to litigation, particularly in a matter of such severity as an accusation of genocide and particularly before a cause of this standing. And it behoves that state to provide supporting evidence of some credibility. Here South Africa cites only a couple of general public statements by Israel referencing merely a press report by Reuters and a publicity release from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. These responses were not addressed directly or even indirectly to South Africa. There is no evidence of positive opposition as required by the court. Further, South Africa cites no relevant exchange between the parties which would be the normal fashion for the expression and determination of a dispute between states. This actually typifies how South Africa has approached this matter. It seems to believe that it does not take two to tango. It is sufficient if one state determines there is a dispute leaving the other party full amongst. Professor Dugard explains that South Africa had voiced its concerns in the Security Council and in public statements and referred and had further referred the matter to the International Criminal Court. At that point he says it became clear there was a serious dispute between the two states. The court has emphasised that in the case of statements made by one state in a multilateral forum, the court must give particular attention into Ilya to the content of a party statement and to the identity of the intended addresses in order to determine whether that statement, together with any reaction there are two, show that the parties before it held clearly opposite views. South Africa's actions were insufficient. Indeed in the Marshall Islands cases the court referred specifically to statements made at a conference noted that it did not call for a specific reaction by the UK and thus no opposition of views can be inferred from the absence of any such reaction. Specific reaction. It is disingenuous for Professor Dugard to conclude that Israel must have been a war from South Africa's public statements, De Marsh and referral to the ICC of Israel's Genocidal Acts that a dispute existed between the two states. This is not a dispute, it is a unispute, a one-sided clapping of hands. Professor Dugard perhaps tries to retrieve the situation by declaring that special considerations apply to the existence of disputes concerning Article 9 without telling us what those conditions could possibly be. We come now to the rather bizarre story of the exchange of note verbal. Professor Dugard would have us believe that such exchanges are merely a matter of courtesy of little real consequence. This is not the normal understanding of such notes and their importance in international relations but he says this for a reason as we shall see. South Africa instituted proceedings against Israel on the 29th of December in its long recital. The application notes that on the 21st of December South Africa sent a note verbal to Israel raising its concerns about genocide in Gaza. The application further states that Israel has not responded directly to South Africa's note verbal. This is incorrect. Israel did indeed respond that very day informing South Africa that the note verbal has been forwarded to capital and that a response was expected shortly. South Africa confirmed the next day that it had received the message. On the 26th of December the director general of Israel's ministry of foreign affairs proposed to his counterpart in the department of international relations and cooperation of South Africa by text to schedule a meeting at his earliest convenience in order to discuss the issues raised. On the 27th of December the embassy sent to South Africa by email a note verbal suggesting a meeting of respective directors general at the earliest convenience in order to discuss the issues raised. An attempt by the embassy to hand deliver the note was refused due to a national holiday and the South African Department of International Relations specifically advised the embassy on the 28th of December to hand deliver the note on the 2nd of January. The application was instituted on the 29th of December. Okay, and right now that is Malcolm Shaw presenting the basics of Israel's defense. We're going to return to our studio discussion panel opening once again with Dr. Leron Libman, former head of international law with the IDF. Leron, this was not nearly as charismatic as the first speech by Talair, but this is very much the pure meat of the law. Walk us through the general thrust of the arguments being made. Okay, the question of jurisdiction is the first and most crucial question because if the court does not have jurisdiction then everyone goes home. There would not be no provisional measures and all the discussion of genocide yes or no without jurisdiction the court doesn't operate because the court is a kind of an arbitrator. States have to agree and in this case South Africa claims that Israel agreed when it signed the genocide convention, which has a clause stating that disputes would come to the ICJ, the International Court of Justice. And now Professor Shaw is claiming that actually there's no dispute in a legal sense between South Africa and Israel. With no dispute there would be no jurisdiction, with no jurisdiction, the discussion would end. I'm not sure at this stage should say how strong an argument it is, but it's a very crucial argument. And if the court would want the safe way to get out of this with as less political damages possible, this is like the legal technical way to say our hands are tied, we do not have jurisdiction. I'm going to turn to you, Dani Aialon, former Israeli ambassador to the US. Is that really enough because once the case is brought up, it's in the international headlines that Israel has been charged with genocide before the ICJ, getting off on a technicality of jurisdiction isn't going to change the minds of the world that's watching. So I think we should look at it at the right perspective, which is not legal at all. It's the whole, I would say, episode here, which is quite outrageous, is part and parcel of the Palestinian attempt to continue and delegitimize Israel. Palestinians have waged a total war on Israel, not on the 7th of October, but long before. And when I talk about Palestinians, it's just that the Hamas, it's also the Palestinian Authority. And this is very relevant now when some say, and especially the Americans, expecting that the Palestinian Authority, in some revitalized way, would continue to come into Gaza. This shows, and it's no secret that actually the South Africans are standing as a stooge for the Palestinians. And within this action, the Palestinians show, and I'm talking about Abu Mazen and his cronies, that they are not really looking for peace coexistence or even negotiations on peace with Israel, but quite they are continuing to try and put Israel in the corner. They cannot win militarily, so they will try to do it legally or through the international community. So this is one aspect which is very important, and it is not failed by the Americans, which understand quite accurately what is happening. So I think at the end of the day, it will again backfire against the Palestinians who, for the last 120 years, made mistakes over and over again, and always actually compromising their own national interests. The same case is here. I don't know what will be the results of the court, but I think it's almost immaterial, because if indeed the Palestinians and the South Africans will succeed to convince the court, and I'm not talking about the long-term verdict which can take years, but I'm talking about days of calling for ceasefire. This is not enforceable by the court. It will go back to the Security Council, where the United States will veto it, and here again, the Palestinians will not gain anything. What Israel has lost is again in the public opinion arena and the fact that we have to appear before the court claiming that we have not committed genocide, just attributing or putting the names of genocide by the name of Israel in a court like that and in a trial like that is another political victory by the Palestinians, and this is how we should look at it. So the Palestinians will continue to try to score points in the political arena, but strategically they will lose because they will not further their interest quite the country. I want to build on some of those points with you, Lleuron, because we heard about the PLO and the PA's own points, their own statements that are no less radical than Hamas's in many cases. Does that change the global perception? Does that change any of the points of law where Israel's operations aren't simply against one terror organization, but when you look at much of the Palestinian national identity that is just as dedicated to the destruction of the Jewish state, does that change in any way or influence the points of law? I think in this proceeding less, but if I can refer to what Johnny just said, I think of course this kind of case has ramifications which are important and relevant in the international sphere and a political sphere, but you have to understand the legal procedure to understand ramification, right? We are here on a discussion on provisional measures, and I think there's a hint in yesterday's argument by South Africa of their strategy here. I think they know they have a very weak case to prove eventually genocide, and if I have a minute, I'll explain why, okay? Genocide, like every crime, and that's the crime of crime, as Professor Schultz has said, has two elements. There's the factual elements, the acts, and the intention of the perpetrator. Now the acts, you can take the killing, the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza and so on, say, well, these are acts that can be genocide, ignoring context, and when they go to intention, they take all of these statements, irresponsible, repugnant statements of different Israeli politicians and even singers that goes to, yes, there's a genocidal intent, but you have to have a connection between the actions and the intent, not just people putting steam off in television, right? And you have to really prove that the actions could not be explained by another intent, like Dr Becker said in the beginning, the intent to defend Israel and the fight Hamas, which is acting amid Palestinian civilians. And this is a very hard, possibly, I think, impossible for South Africa. But what they really emphasized yesterday is we are talking about provisional measures and here the threshold is very low. Jezas have to show they have a plausible case, plausible. They said that even if there is a possibility of another intent at this stage, it's not enough to say they don't have a plausible case, that even in some of the acts they are referred to, we're not committed in purpose deliberately by Israel, it doesn't mean that they don't have a case. And why is the emphasis on this? Because once they get provisional measures from the court, just because they have a plausible case, no matter what the provisional measure would be, it will mean that the ITJ thinks there's a plausible case of an Israeli genocide in Gaza. And this alone would cause us many problems because let's take exports or imports to Israel. Many states are party to the arms trade treaty or have internal laws which prohibit exporting weapons to states who commit gross violations of human rights law. If they have a case before the ICJ that said there's a plausible genocide in Gaza, that would cause Israel problems by itself. Even as, as Zanni said, in a few years, the verdict would be not guilty. The problems would be now, not in a few years. This is why this jurisdiction question is very important and provisional measures are a critical question in this matter, not just what would be the provisional measures, but saying that there is a plausible case for South Africa would be very problematic for Israel. And before we continue this discussion, we do want to go live from the Hague where we have our contributor, Alex Kettier, joining us from just outside. Alex, we did see that there were some mass demonstrations last night and we're hearing some reports of more of them today. What's going on out there? Yeah, well, you could probably hear them over my voice. These protesters are assembled in their numbers. If I look directly in front of me, I can see hundreds of Palestinian flags, a few South African flags as well, and a few hundred feet, a few hundred meters down the road to my left, you will see a few hundred Israeli flags, as well as some Dutch flags as well, between them, the International Court of Justice, the Peace Palace behind me and also a couple hundred Dutch law enforcement officers as well. They are watching proceedings on the big screens. They have heard the Israeli defence accusing South Africa of ignoring altogether the atrocities committed on October 7 by Hamas in that terror attack, saying that in fact the violence, the level of atrocity committed on the 7th of October justifies Israel's right to defend itself and therefore the accusations leveled by South Africa do not stick. That is the defence by Israel. Ronald Lamola, who is the South African Justice Minister, did acknowledge yesterday when South Africa was presenting its arguments the attack by Hamas on October 7 and saying that no matter how violent the attack, even if it included atrocity crimes it does not justify a breach of the convention, a breach that Israel firmly denies here at The Hague. Thank you very much for that report from what's going on out there. Is there any sort of indication that we are seeing about, in public perception, which actually before we do that let's listen live to the continuation of Shah's statements. It has had the specific intent to destroy in whole or in part the Palestinian people as such. The intention faced with the 7th of October atrocities and the continuing rocket fire and the incarceration of the hostages on the parts of Israel to act in order to defend itself so as to terminate the threats against it and rescue the hostages certainly exists. The intent to deal with the armed militants of Hamas and other such groups is undeniable. Were it the case which we deny that Israeli forces have transgressed some of the rules of conflict then the matter will be tackled at the appropriate time by Israel's robust and independent legal system. But that is not the intent to destroy all or part of a people as such. Israel's actions in restricting its targeting practices to attack military personnel or objectives in accordance with international humanitarian law in a proportionate manner in each case as well as its practice of mitigating civilian harm such as by forewarning civilians of impending action by the unprecedented and extensive use of telephone calls, leafletting and so forth coupled with the facilitation of humanitarian assistance all demonstrate the precise opposite of any possible genocidal intent. South Africa in seeking to discover the necessary intent presents a distorted picture. It misunderstands the nature and provenance of certain common comments made by some Israeli politicians. Let me try and explain the big picture. Israel possesses a clear and effective structure of authority with regard to governmental decision. The war against Hamas is managed on behalf of the government by two central organs. The ministerial committee on national security affairs and the war cabinet, the latter established for the purpose of managing the war by the former. These bodies make the relevant decisions regarding the war's conduct and according to Israeli law the decisions of the government and its committees obligate the ministers of the government in accordance with the principle of collective responsibility. It is the collective decisions of these bodies which are the binding provisions in question. The Prime Minister stands at the head of these organs decides on the agenda of their meetings, steers their activity and summarises the meetings and the instructions issued therein to make it clear. In order to determine the policy and intentions of the government of Israel it is necessary to examine the decisions of the ministerial committee on national security affairs and the war cabinet and to examine whether the particular comments expressed conform or not with the policies and decisions made. Thus to produce random quotes that are not in conformity with the government policy produced as describing is misleading our best. Such as the statements by the minister of heritage for example who is completely outside the policy and decision making process in the war. In any event his statement was immediately repudiated by members of the war cabinet and other ministers including the Prime Minister. In tab 1a of the volume which Israel has submitted to the court one may find numerous excerpts from internal cabinet decisions that attest to Israel's true intent throughout this war. For example one finds the instructions from the Prime Minister in a meeting of the ministerial committee on national security affairs from the 29th of October stating the following one. The Prime Minister stated time and again we must prevent a humanitarian disaster too. The Prime Minister indicated the possible sorts of solutions that will ensure required supply of water, food and medicine increasing the amount of trucks entering with the necessary inspections. Three promoting the construction of field hospitals in the south of the Gaza Strip to re-emphasise this is a directive to authorities nothing less. Tab 1a contains a considerable number of similar directives emphasizing the need to avoid harm to civilians and facilitate humanitarian aid. Genocidal intent? Let me turn to the IDF. This is this like every army is a hierarchical body that operates by way of orders from and now also joining us in studio is ambassador Adlon Leal Thelmer former ambassador to South Africa. Thank you very much for being with us. I want to actually open with you this time because we have seen these extremely strong invectives from South Africa. What's their motivation for putting on this show? South Africa was always strongly connected to the Palestinians from the time of the struggle. When we asked Mandela why is he so close to Arafat, he said when I was 27 years in jail only three leaders in the world cared about my whereabouts and it was Castro, Arafat and Gaddafi. Where were you? You all called me a terrorist and when he came out of jail he said including in conversations with me if you will enable the Palestinians to get the freedom will open a new page and this was always the guideline in South African foreign policy. Are we close to a Palestinian state? Are we close to Palestinian freedom or not? In the last few years as you know we had no negotiations and we had a deterioration in the West Bank and things deteriorated to the point that they had a decision to close our embassy and their relations were emptied of content. But there's a marked difference from having bad or virtually non-existent relations to directly using the international courts as a weapon of policy. Yeah, you're correct. But the South African, the only way the South African could approach the international court of justice was by the claim of genocide. They could not claim for crimes against humanity or war crimes because they were not a direct subject to any Israeli hostilities. So the only way they could approach the court is on genocide because genocide is something that is damaging the whole humanity and the court enables every country even if it was not directly affected to approach the court every country that is a member to approach the court and claim for genocide accusations. So this was the only way they could approach the court. But we also have to note that South Africa maintains very close relations with Iran as well, Russia and China. Is this them taking another shot at the Western world? Do they have any real interest in this? They have good relations with Iranians. By the way, in the past they were very close to the Fatah, to our fat. In recent years, they became much closer to Hamas and definitely they act here on the behalf. But you must remember that they have their traumas from the past and they well remember the 20 years in which we were the allies of South African apartheid and they make all these connections and in a way they're punishing us now for being allies of those who tortured them when under apartheid.  Is this not just opening them to a countersuit of their own and damaging their own interests? You mean the country South Africa? I don't think so. First of all, the world considered the fight against apartheid. It was very legitimate. The world joined. The fight, the world was part of removing apartheid, and the world was very joyful when apartheid was gone. So they didn't fight on their own, and they couldn't do it on their own. Another thing is it's very difficult to claim that South Africa is an anti-Semitic country because a Jewish community was flourishing there in the past when I was ambassador. There were 120,000 Jews there strongly into the business community, but also ministers and the Supreme Court judges and so on. And even I would dare to say that even today when the community is about half the size, I don't think they are in danger because there was no direct anti-Semitism. You have to remember that along Mandela, Jewish people fought in the struggle, joined the struggle, and some of them became ministers in Mandela's cabinet. So they have a good record in relations with Jews, definitely the whites in the apartheid because the Jews were part of the white community.  I want to move back to the very specifics of this case with you, Dr Leron, because we are seeing the case laid out and the basics of the defenses laid out here. We were speaking just a moment ago while we had some time about where Israel is going to run into its hardest legal discussions, and that is on the invective and the rhetoric that Israel, some of its ministers have used. Let's walk into the pitfalls that are inherent to that part of the case. Well, I'll say the problems are a few problems which are of course connected. It's the rhetoric which is very problematic and some of it from people of high position which are relevant. The actions, not the actions, the outcomes of what's going on in Gaza that you cannot deny that the situation is very hard. And the fact that in this stage it just has to prove a plausible case. So even if it's possible that Israel did not intend to destroy the Palestinian population, they can still have provisional measures, right? That's very problematic for Israel. That's really the core problem here. And I want to turn back to you because ultimately anything the court decides still has to go through the Security Council. As you said, when we're talking about provisional measures, how is that going to stand up to the United States of Israel? Well, I think that whatever the outcome will be on the court in Hague, the real decisions will be made in New York in the Security Council. No way the United States will allow these outrageous allegations to sustain. Not only that, but also the American geostrategical interests are very clear, a decisive victory over Hamas and over Iran at the end of the day. So even as Dr Lyfmann said about the risk of some countries invoking any kind of, any kind of decision by the court, of not sending arms to Israel, I think this will not stand. I think you cannot stand. The United States will continue to supply the arms. Other countries will do the same because at the end of the day we see that what the Palestinians and the Hamas are trying to make it is really a division in the world between the United States and its allies, mainly the Western world and the other side, which we call it the Axis of Evil, maybe the New Axis of Evil, but basically it's Iran, its proxies, and Iran is being supported economically by China and politically and militarily by Russia. So at the end of the day I think that the United States will not allow any decision in the Security Council which will be against Israel's interest, mainly also American interests. But if we go back to where we started, this is a total war by the Palestinian, this is part of the political war against Israel and the fact that Israel is standing there, it's already a victory by the Palestinians. By the way, there is another issue and I will close here which is very symbolic because what the Palestinians are trying to do is take Israel down the road of South Africa apartheid and what we see in the campuses in the United States accusing Israel of apartheid is also something of quite successfully being presented by the Palestinians and the fact that South Africa is the one that is invoking the case against Israel is again more than symbolic and putting Israel in association with not just genocide but also apartheid. I want to add here something about the Security Council. First of all, there are several interim measures possible on the humanitarian aid, on the displacement and so on, but the one that is worrying Israel very much is the total halt of hostilities. If Israel will not respect this interim demand of total cease to fire and it will go to the Security Council, it will be a very complicated veto for the United States. It's not a normal veto. It's a veto on a request of the international court of justice on accusations about genocide. I agree with Danny, they will veto but they will put straightforward demands to Israel before they veto including, I think, end of the war, including the beginning of negotiations so the Americans will negotiate with us the veto before and because if they don't veto then it can go to section seven and so on in the Security Council and be very, very complicated so they will veto but have their conditions. Well, we're going to discuss this and what those conditions might be in a little bit but first we're going to return back to Professor Shaw's arguments because he is addressing the question of rhetoric in this exact time. The court was prepared to consider not only the question of the plausibility of rights, well some have shuffled my papers, but also the question of the possible breach of such rights. Power of the court to indicate provisional measures and article 41 of the statute has its object, yes, someone thought that my speech was a pack of cards. Indeed, in the Jadav case, my apologies, the court was prepared to examine evidence as to the existence of asserted rights and whether as a matter of fact the violations had plausibly happened. The final point to be made in this section of my pleading is simply to underline the obvious point that the court needs to consider the relevant respective rights of both parties, respondent as well as the applicant. Article 41 provides that the purpose of the provisional measures is to preserve the rights of either party. I would note the court's order of the 16th of March 2022 in Ukraine, Russia stating that the power of the court to indicate provisional measures has as its object the preservation of the respective rights claimed by the parties and further quote the comment in the Myanmar case that the function of provisional measures is to protect the respective rights of either party pending its final decision. This mutual protection or balancing criterion in the light of the rights of both parties is intended to prevent either party being placed in a situation of disadvantage and to ensure that irreparable prejudice will not be caused to either party. I will look briefly at the relevant rights of both parties here. As regards the applicant, I make three simple and brief points. First, South Africa has presented a confusing and a partial recycle of the facts. This will be discussed later this morning by Ms Rajwan. Secondly, that the appropriate legal framework for this tragic situation is that of international humanitarian law. Thirdly, that Israel's efforts both to mitigate harm when conducting operations as well as its efforts to alleviate suffering through humanitarian activities have gone relatively unnoticed and dispel or the very least mitigates against any allegation of genocidal intent. As from Israel's withdrawal of its civilian and military presence from Gaza in 2005 which brought an end to its belligerent occupation and the violent coming to power of Hamas in 2007, a situation of conflict has existed with Hamas firing rockets as Israeli towns and villages unceasingly. However, the attack on Israel on the 7th of October was qualitatively different from all that went before. The truth is that if there has been any genocidal activity in this situation it was the events of 7th of October. Acts and intent can and have been adequately demonstrated. But Hamas recognised as a terrorist group by at least 41 states including the US, the UK, all members of the EU, Canada, Australia, Saudi Arabia, Japan and Colombia is not before the court only South Africa a third party that is not involved in the armed conflict appears. Nevertheless, as South Africa has pointed out, complicity in genocide is in play. States that supported, condoned, praised or glorified the events of the 7th of October, both at the time and later stand guilty of a violation of article 3e of the convention as being complicit in genocide and indeed of the duty to prevent genocide under article 1. And as the agent has pointed out, South Africa has given succor and support to Hamas at the least. Clearly of relevance to a discussion of the situation is the facilitation of humanitarian assistance, something that hardly fits well with accusations of genocidal intent as my colleagues will demonstrate. Israeli-Israel's activities in this area need to be addressed and not swept aside as South Africa seeks to do. Prime amongst the rights of the respondent that are critical to any legal evaluation of the situation is the inherent right of any state to defend itself embedded in customs international law and enshrined in the UN Charter, this right afforded to states reaffirms and underlines the responsibility of all states towards their citizens and marks the acceptance by the international community of the political reality and legal confirmation that states when attacked may legitimately respond in a forceful and proportionate manner. Professor Low yesterday sought to maintain that Israel has no right to self-defense in this situation. How could anyone possibly argue that Israel could not defend itself faced with the 7th of October atrocities and the incessant attacks against its civilians since? Indeed a very wide range of states has acknowledged the right of self-defense here ranging from the UK to the US, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Japan, Ghana and Guatemala and others. Israel bears the responsibility to exercise its protection over its citizens, not only those constantly subjected to bombardment from Gaza but also and critically with regard to those captured and held hostage as a result of the 7th of October outrage. These rights exist and cannot be disregarded. Of course Israel does not have any right to violate the law, still less to commit genocide and indeed it does not but it does have every right to act to defend itself in accordance with the rules of principles of international law and so it has done. A link has to be established between the rights asserted and the provisional measures requested and this issue will be addressed by Mr Staker and he will show that the measures proposed go far beyond the protection of the rights asserted. Other than President Members of the Court, this is an important case. Allegations have been made with verge on the outrageous. The attack by Hamas on 7th of October with its deliberate commission of atrocities clearly falls within the statutory definition of genocide. Israel's response was and remains legitimate and necessary. It acted and continues to act in a manner consistent with international law. It does so not in an unrestrained manner but in investing unprecedented efforts in mitigating civilian harm at a cost to its operations as well as alleviating hardship and suffering with investment of resources and efforts. There is no genocidal intent here. This is no genocide. South Africa tells us only half the story. Israel is guilty of genocide. We cannot deal with Hamas. Only Israel must be stopped from protecting its citizenry and eliminating the egregious threat that is Hamas. We cannot deal with Hamas. Meanwhile we must bind the arms of the state of Israel. Hamas is for some other body. I conclude. First the core of genocide is intent. Without intent there can be no genocide in law. It is true for the merits. It is equally true for provisional measures. Any prima facie consideration indeed of intent even at this preliminary stage will only demonstrate its absence from Israel's activities. Second there is here no dispute under the genocide convention as of the time of submission of the application. As a lecturer South Africa now is required for prima facie jurisdiction. Indeed South Africa's own precipitate activities with notes over recent weeks demonstrates the lack of its confidence in this respect and that is telling. Thirdly the right to be protected in the provisional measures procedure cover not just the applicant but also the respondent and chief amongst these rights is that of the right and obligation to act to defend itself and its citizens. This must be considered unwaid by the court as against the false accusations level of Israel. Madame President, members of the court, thank you for your kind attention. I would ask you to call Madame Rajwan at your convenience. Thank you Professor Shaw. Before I give the floor to the next speaker the court will observe a coffee break of 10 minutes. The sitting is adjourned. That's a perfect opportunity for us to discuss the situation further with our studio discussion panel. I want to open with you first LeRon because we were talking about the merits of this case and where you think the stronger and the weaker arguments are. What the strong arguments for South Africa are the fact that the reality on the ground in Gaza is bad and there are these statements, repugnant statements by Israeli politicians about wiping Gaza and so on. That works for them but they have to prove the connection which is more harder. That's what would be problematic for them but at this stage it's up to show that the case is plausible, plausible is a very low threshold, right? That would be the problem for Israel. Jurisdiction, if Israel would succeed in claiming that there is not a real dispute here so there is no jurisdiction for the court that would be an easy way for the court to get out without too many political ramifications. We are judges, this is the law, we do not, our hands are tied, we do not have jurisdiction but I suspect the chances are not very high. But as long as the court decides there's plausibility to the claims then they can try to implement these sort of injunctions such as a ceasefire and the like for the duration of the case going forward. Exactly. And the context that Israel based its opening arguments around would be the closest or the best defense against exactly that sort of procedure. Yes, yes, exactly. To claim that since we do have other statements that of course South Africa omitted from Haiti, sometimes the same statement just after the sentence South Africa used has saying that we are at war with Hamas and not with the Palestinian population. But I mean that does make Israel's case harder. Now we had actually been having just during some of that break a discussion about the weaknesses of South Africa's case and why it reflects their own experiences rather than the points of law and you wanted to open up on that. Yeah I think here I think the weakest point that South Africa made yesterday in the oral presentation is a point they even did not include in their application. And at one stage Professor Van Roy I think said well so if some ask why Hamas is not here and we have a legal argument okay Hamas is not a state it is not a state party to the genocide convention so we could not bring it here okay. So that's the reason why only Israel is here because we of course South Africa care for humanity not just we're not just having here a political exercise in favour of Palestinians and against Israel but this is a very weak argument for two reasons. First while Hamas is not a state party the state of Palestine is recognized by South Africa as a state and not just by South Africa but many states and the state of Palestine has ratified the genocide convention and while Ramallah does not control Gaza it does not say it doesn't have some obligation under the genocide convention. Did you hear Ramallah denouncing the genocide opening an investigation into the genocide these are all allegations against Israel why you're not doing that why why there is such such incitement what about Palestinian incitement just not just by Hamas in the Palestinian Authority textbooks there also a genocidal incitement okay taught to children. So if South Africa would come in clean hands really caring about preventing genocide they should have the case also against the state of Palestine and they did not did it. The second point is that as I said earlier South Africa has a relation not just with the Palestinian Authority but also with Hamas and South Africa's foreign minister had a phone call with Hamas leader Ismail Aniyah I think like 10 days after October 7 and Hamas claimed that he actually congratulated them for the Alexa flood he of course immediately said it's not true but he didn't acknowledge that there was a conversation about how to get humanitarian aid to Gaza. Now at 17th of October it was very clear what happened in the Gaza envelope on the 7th of October South Africa so very acutely caring about preventing genocide its foreign minister did not say a word to Hamas leader about the genocide did not denounce it did not ask it to stop nothing in the heart they denounced it yes but only now not when it could have mattered I mean Hamas leader asked the call that's an opportunity to do something because someone needs you and at least say that you are against the genocide you should not do it again of course with it prevent Hamas for doing it again I'm not sure but if South Africa really cared about humanity and these very high values it should have been done so they come to the court in unclean hands that would probably not bring this case to an halt but it is an important point about South Africa as you probably know South Africa go through terrible years economic deterioration corruption and all this exercise of toppling the apartheid is seen after 30 years as a failure and many people who supported the fight the struggle against apartheid are very disappointed that the record of South Africa here they come back to the international court of justice and they've come back they've come back they remind the world about the hero heroism and and in the struggle against apartheid and here they come to save the world again from a new apartheid a new possibility of genocide and and look how much focus on South Africa and who spoke about South Africa in the last decade and if anyone did they only mentioned the failures of South Africa the fact that you have four hours of electricity a day in South Africa and shortages of water and endless cases of corruption even high level corruption so here they come with the struggle days with the with the and show the world remind the world of the heroism of the struggle against apartheid in the attempt to to come and do it again along the flip side the flip side is that if it will be obvious to most of the international community that they came in for self-serving purposes not for some lofty ideas but they are really playing they are in the compass of Iran and Hamas actually they are playing for them i think this will discredit the South Africa certainly in Washington in European countries and that could be a real long-term danger for the status of South Africa and for its own interests sure sure they they're part of bricks so they are anti colonialism anti the west if you want strongly associated economically definitely with Russia China Iran and these countries so these are known things you don't you don't have to have a new research to show where they stand internationally and this might work against them true but the but the fact that Mandela Mandela is an international figure admired figure and here they come the children of Mandela come to save the world from evil again this is this is working in favor of South Africa but it's not really Mandela that we're talking about we're talking about a regime that seems to coordinate and cooperate directly with Hamas which is a much blacker mark this isn't talking about the existence of apartheid in the past this is talking about the current government of South Africa coordinating collaborating and possibly depending on how the court ends up looking at the subject of incitement being part and parcel to that I already said South Africa was strongly always strongly recommending the case of Hamas defending the case of the Palestinian people Hamas became a player after the presidency of Mandela but I remember when we expelled the 400 leaders of Hamas to Lebanon I was summoned to Mandela and he asked me what are you doing and I told him look these are not the Fatah people these are not the Mandela people this is the the opponent the the Arafat people these are the opponents of Arafat and so it was new to him the phenomena of Hamas was new at that time but over the years also because they have a strong Islamic community they connected with Hamas and today they're closer to Hamas and to the Fatah I mean it seems like just trying to rest on some of their past accomplishments to hide their current corruption and links to these very sadistic murderous regimes Yes I think so far that's succeeding a lot of attention the enemies of Israel definitely see them now as their ambassadors as their representatives and I think they have not much to lose because even if in two three years the court will decide that Israel is not exercising genocidal methods or so on South Africa gained international attention that they were looking for and I don't think they have much to lose of course like Danny said if we will be able to prove that Iran is financing it or friends of Hamas are financing it or they had legal advice from people connected to Iran it will very much undermine the case but we have to remember that South Africa is a very high level legal expertise has a constitution that is considered a very modern constitution excellent judges by the way in the past the goldstone Richard Goldstone was a South African and so I don't think they need legal advice they probably they might need financial advice for all this exercise and it will be worthwhile checking who finances the whole thing we're going to turn back to you Danny because while we're discussing in many ways the minutia and the fine points of the law we do have that whole question hanging over us of does it even matter is it possible to get a fair trial here when you have not simply judges but national interests on the bench exactly and actually what you see here really is a realignment of the entire international community I mean this is not just a war between Israel and Hamas it's not even a war between Israel and Islamist jihad or a global jihadist which Hamas is a part of it's basically now we see a real division between the Western civilization Western world and Iran Russia in China I would add also North Korea and I think now South Africa can proudly join this axis of Iran and I think this is what is understood by Washington and I think clearly the European sentiment is also changing towards Israel as they understand what is here at stake which is not just Israel in our own interest but also the very very security of European countries and the international community as a whole does that mean this entire case can be looked at through the lens of these illiberal powers this axis you mentioned using the rules that the Western world has tried to set up to promote fairness as a way of simply tearing down that exact system that's a very good point and I think the fact that Justice Aaron Barak is there on the bench is very important because he was the one that coined the the term of a democracy defending itself against undemocratic or and against democratic ways to bring down democracies and I think here what we see that South Africa is trying really to you know represent the case of the villains under the under I would say the infrastructure of international law is very very ironic and I think I don't think it will skip the eyes of I would say the people in the international community even in academia because this is such a flagrant use of democratic and humanitarian criteria to actually bring down a humanitarian case and I think it was very important that the I think Tal Beker mentioned that the term genocide was coined after the genocide against the Jewish people and it was turned by a Jewish yeah Mr Raphael Lamkin who coined it in 1949 so here we see really an atrocious way to really change actually the situation and he said instead of putting acute lenses on the court they're just blind folding the court so I believe at the end of the day in the long term Israel may be vindicated and Hamas in South Africa will lose badly but that's in the long term I want to turn back to you Liron when we're talking about the long term is there a way if this case is not thrown out on jurisdictional grounds for Israel to beat the provisional measures to make sure that they can beat the rap but also beat the ride yeah maybe I think it's supposed to say it's not a lost battle and I wouldn't paint the whole bench at black colors I mean first there's the judicial ethos right these people are sitting there on their personal capacity not as representatives of the states and I guess most of them do not get a note from the state what they are supposed to vote so it's not a battle we have to lose right and I think it was very important as Ambassador Lleon said that Israel decided to add and add hook Israeli judge and something is the as someone is distinguished as Justice Barak because now we have somebody in the inner circle of the court deliberations right nothing would be done behind the closed doors without an Israeli representative being there and being having the possibility to affect the discussions so I don't judge among the judges exactly deliberations to but the only among the judges when they discuss when the judges would discuss the case Justice Barak would be there within the judges and that this is important I guess I don't think this case anyway would with we turned on a consensus of the bench so that's also an important point right and I do think Israel has a good chance of on the merit side and a more problematic case on on the and the court is reconvening now so we're going to take that live for you so let's take a listen to that madam president members of the court it is an honor to appear before you on behalf of the state of israel as professor shawn noted at this stage south africa does not need to prove that genocidal acts have been or are being committed but it does have to show that the genocide convention is actually relevant it has to show some level of acts and some level of intent professor shawn has spoken to the issue of express intent it is my task to speak to the circumstances of israel's actions israel cannot possibly comprehensively address today all of the allegations made in south africa's application in this regard the applicant paints a dire picture but it is a partial and deeply flawed picture the application is so distorted in its descriptions that it prevents the court from properly assessing the plausibility of the rights asserted by south africa plausibility cannot be determined based on the unsubstantiated alliation of one party to the proceedings alone if article 41 of the court statute is to have any meaning in the time available i will address three aspects of reality on the ground that the applicant has either ignored or misrepresented first hamas's military tactics and strategy second israel's efforts to mitigate civilian harm during operational activity and third israel's efforts to address humanitarian hardship in gaza despite hamas's attempts at obstruction with respect to hamas's military tactics and strategy it is astounding that in yesterday's hearing hamas was mentioned only in passing and only in reference to the october 7 massacre in israel listening to the presentation by the applicant it was as if israel is operating in gaza against no armed adversary but the same hamas that carried out the october 7 attacks in israel is the governing authority in gaza and the same hamas has built a military strategy founded on embedding its assets and operatives in and amongst the civilian population urban warfare will always result in tragic deaths harm and damage but in gaza these undesired outcomes are exacerbated because they are the desired outcomes of hamas in urban warfare civilian casualties may be the unintended but lawful result of attacks on lawfully military objectives international humanitarian law recognises this reality and provides a framework for balancing military necessity with humanitarian considerations these do not constitute genocidal acts in the current conflict many civilian deaths are directly caused by hamas booby trapped homes detonate and kill indiscriminately mines and alleyways collapse structures around them and over 2000 rockets misfired by hamas have landed inside gaza causing untold levels of harm one telling example is a blast at the al-hali hospital on october 17 hamas claimed that the israel defense forces the idf attacked the hospital headlines around the world rushed to repeat this claim the idf later proved and us intelligence and other national security intelligence agencies independently confirmed that the blast was the result of a failed launch from within gaza it was not as hamas claimed the fault of the idf damage to civilian structures is another fact claimed by south africa as evidence of genocide but south africa does not consider the sheer extent to which hamas uses ostensibly civilian structures for military purposes houses schools mosques un facilities and shelters are all abused for military purposes by hamas including as rocket launching sites hundreds of kilometres of tunnels dug by hamas under populated areas in gaza often caused structures above to collapse and the slides before you you can see a militant priming projectiles for launch on idf forces in gaza you can see the holes in the residential house to hide and launch them here you can see projectiles discovered underneath a bed in a child's bedroom here a rocket being fired from a school the launch site is circled in red here you can see firing from a un school you can see the letters un on the roof and the fire is circled in red and here long range rocket launchers hidden inside a scouts club building finally you can see part of a tunnel that runs for four kilometres including nearby the era's crossing which is adjacent to israel gaza's infrastructure has certainly been harmed during the conflict however south africa would have the court believe that israel is deliberately and unlawfully destroying homes without cause but harm caused to lawful military objectives and harm caused as a result of hamas's actions is not evidence of genocide south africa also alleges that israel has waged an assault on gaza's health system what south africa has neglected to bring before the court however is the overwhelming evidence of hamas's military use of such hospitals hamas militants retreated to rentisi hospital in gaza on october 7th with hostages from israel whom they then held in the basement in the slide before you you will see a militant going into kud's hospital with an rpg hamas fired an idea of forces from near and from within the kud's hospital a chief hospital gaza's largest hamas managed operations from a closed off area here you can see an opening to the tunnel that ran for hundreds of meters directly under the hospital here you can see the weapons found in different wings of the hospital and here cctb footage showing armed militants bringing hostages into the hospital's lobby more than 80 militants hiding inside another hospital the adwan hospital surrendered themselves to the idf and here you can see a weapon that idf forces discovered hidden inside incubators at the hospital the director of the hospital has admitted that numerous members of hospital staff belong to hamas's military wing in the indonesian hospital in the neighbourhood of jabalia hamas forces managed their operations from that hospital until the idf reached it idf forces recovered the bodies of five murdered hostages from a tunnel dug underneath the hospital the list goes on in every single hospital that the idf has searched in gaza it has found evidence of hamas military use israel is acutely aware that because of hamas's use of hospitals as shields for its military operations in gray violations of international humanitarian law patients and staff and we are going to discuss this for the last couple of minutes we have ambassador leol i want to come to you on this one because despite the merits or lack thereof in the case the fact that there is a case is still causing untold damage to israel's reputation i think from the international angle it's causing damage it is associating the name of israel with a claim for genocide repeatedly with unbelievable international coverage unbelievably international interest so it's causing damage no doubt but i want to say something as an israeli about what's happening inside israel what it can cause inside israel the israeli leadership maybe not netanyahu but other politicians were almost ignoring the international community over the last years saying we care about ourselves about the future of the jewish people we'll do what's necessary and kind of the world can shout and we will go on and here we are in the hug the world the world is dealing with our case and who is defending israel not politicians there is no one politician here defending israel only professionals legal experts civil civil servants that the israeli government for many years kind of sidelined i know it from my friends the diplomats they were sidelined and even they ever come back well it is a question that is going to have to be looked at as we go forward of should israel be dealing with that three politicians should it be trusting these international systems but for today we have to deal with the process as it stands i thank both of you for breaking this down for us for everyone else though we are out of time catch us again for some follow-up of this in our next broadcast at two o'clock local time from israel with dozens of correspondence throughout the world brings the truth from israel to hundreds of millions of people in scores of countries bringing israel's story to the world by 24 news channels now on hot did you know that martin luther king's famous 1968 mountaintop speech was based on his trip to the promised land well now 55 years later his prophetic words are coming true hundreds of african-american women took a journey of a lifetime to the holy land will introduce you to the amazing female spiritual religious leaders who are infusing new energy into the next generation of african-americans if the plastic particles breaks up it does not stop at the micron size it can actually go even smaller so once it decides goes below one micron people call it nano plastics because now it's in its sizes in the nano range these tusks belong to elephants they shoot their most beautiful on the elephants and we should leave them on the elephant every tusk you see today represents an animal that has been killed now shocking images of four terrified israeli hostages were published on the front page of a british publication this week pictures taken on the day they were abducted by Hamas terrorists more than three months ago now their families are calling for global action as more harrowing accounts from released hostages continue to emerge more in this report four new photos of kidnapped israeli women made the front page of a major foreign publication on monday later that same day a video of the four women was made public as well showing them in a terrible state some of them bleeding and one of them crying uncontrollably in more footage released from that black sabbath october 7th the day they were kidnapped by Hamas they can be seen in the back of a van in shock while an angry chanting gazon mob surrounds the van earlier this week one of the hostages who was released from hamas captivity spoke of encountering some of the women still being held by the terrorist organization embyddwot byddwot mwyod mwyod casiodd weimrwch hafawod sielom eto palod on tuesday aviva segal who returned from captivity spoke in the israeli parliament disclosing more unsettling details about the condition of the young women one of the girls returned from the bathroom and i could tell that she was distraught i got up and gave her a hug i apologise for my language but this mother effa touched her another time a young woman that they thought was an idea if officer arrived and they tortured her in front of me i'm her witness 95 days after that brutal hamas assault 15 women are still being held by Hamas israelis are demanding the international community intervene amid growing concerns over the mental and physical well-being of the captives rape can never be accepted it cannot be justified by the context over certain vacuums to which we've heard international community officials refer to some acts are purely evil and should always be denounced Hamas the group that committed such acts has taken hostage 90 women 15 are still held there in Gaza by Hamas as of now u and women has failed to issue any message condemning this footage or the testimony