Oct 9, 2026 · 19 min · 7 segments
Three years after October 7, Israel faces a dangerous new threat and this time, the battlefield is the international legal system. In this episode of "Basic Law", Aylana Meisel-Diament exposes what…
Any day now, the International Court of Justice will rule in a major genocide case, not against Israel, but against Myanmar.
That decision could directly impact the spurious case that South Africa brought against us, a claim all the more absurd given South Africa's own dismal record on racism and violence against women.
The UN reports documented massacres, mass rape, with around 10,000 dead and 725,000 refugees.
The question is, how do you prove genocide? Now, traditionally, genocide requires specific intent, and genocide must be the only reasonable explanation for the conduct.
The move to a more subjective standard could end up haunting the United States and any Western power engaged in the war on terror.
More than 90 countries let their own courts try genocide committed anywhere in the world, and a looser ICJ definition would shape how those courts read the law.
Now, some we know of relate to security, and they've been in discourse for a while, that Hamas was deterred, misconception.
But others that we've discussed less relate to politics and to law, as well as to other matters.
Going back just a few years in Israel, you would have seen posters on the buses and on the billboards with the phrase, "Bagas shachatz," the Supreme Court is the Israeli flak jacket internationally, meaning that the thing protecting Israel from dangerous threats by these hostile global governance institutions was the Supreme Court.
Now, these signs were part of a broader campaign at the time of judicial reform, promoting the need for essentially an all-powerful judiciary whose moral authority and whose systemic integrity was necessary to serve as a sort of legal iron dome on the conduct of war.
For years, in the name of protecting Israelis from both foreign courts and from ourselves, the Supreme Court has inserted itself into cases and situations that foreign judges wouldn't dream of hearing, and we've talked about some here in the past.
Entertaining, in the middle of the 2002 siege, a petition to supply food to terrorists holding hostages in the Church of the Nativity.
Requiring, in 2008, that Israel keep supplying Gaza with fuel and electricity needed for, quote, "vital humanitarian needs," even as rockets flew.
Any day now, the International Court of Justice will rule in a major genocide case, not against Israel, but against Myanmar.
That decision could directly impact the spurious case that South Africa brought against us, a claim all the more absurd given South Africa's own dismal record on racism and violence against women.
The UN reports documented massacres, mass rape, with around 10,000 dead and 725,000 refugees.
The question is, how do you prove genocide? Now, traditionally, genocide requires specific intent, and genocide must be the only reasonable explanation for the conduct.
The move to a more subjective standard could end up haunting the United States and any Western power engaged in the war on terror.
More than 90 countries let their own courts try genocide committed anywhere in the world, and a looser ICJ definition would shape how those courts read the law.
Now, some we know of relate to security, and they've been in discourse for a while, that Hamas was deterred, misconception.
But others that we've discussed less relate to politics and to law, as well as to other matters.
Going back just a few years in Israel, you would have seen posters on the buses and on the billboards with the phrase, "Bagas shachatz," the Supreme Court is the Israeli flak jacket internationally, meaning that the thing protecting Israel from dangerous threats by these hostile global governance institutions was the Supreme Court.
Now, these signs were part of a broader campaign at the time of judicial reform, promoting the need for essentially an all-powerful judiciary whose moral authority and whose systemic integrity was necessary to serve as a sort of legal iron dome on the conduct of war.
For years, in the name of protecting Israelis from both foreign courts and from ourselves, the Supreme Court has inserted itself into cases and situations that foreign judges wouldn't dream of hearing, and we've talked about some here in the past.
Entertaining, in the middle of the 2002 siege, a petition to supply food to terrorists holding hostages in the Church of the Nativity.
Requiring, in 2008, that Israel keep supplying Gaza with fuel and electricity needed for, quote, "vital humanitarian needs," even as rockets flew.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.
