JCPA-UKLFI Briefing on the ICJ Advisory Opinion
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 09. 2024
- Lt.-Col. (res.) Maurice Hirsch, Former Director of the Military Prosecution for Judea and Samaria, interviews Barrister Natasha Hausdorff, Legal Director of UKLFI Charitable Trust, on the fundamental flaws in the recent Advisory Opinion of the ICJ on Israel and the likely ramifications.
• Natasha Hausdorff: "Th...
Listen to the JCPA War Room Briefings Podcast on:
- Spotify - open.spotify.c...
- Pocket Casts - pca.st/o5jpv9kg
- Spreaker - www.spreaker.c...
- RSS feed - www.spreaker.c...
Thank you Natasha ! You are brilliant !!!!!
IT IS A COURT OF JEW HATRED
Natasha Hausdorff you are absolutely amazing. Thank you for standing up for Israel and fighting against the flooding of misinformation in the mainstream media and social media. I think you deserve the most appreciation from every Israeli for being one of the few people who fights the war that Israel is losing over and over again: the war of public opinion.
Below is my summarization of analysis provided by Natasha for your information and use at your discretion.
*Issues with the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Israel*
_Judicial and Factual Problems_
1. Presumption of Guilt:
The ICJ's opinion presupposes violations of international law by Israel without proper fact-finding. This undermines the objectivity required in legal assessments.
2. Lack of Fact-Finding:
The ICJ stated it did not need to engage in fact-finding, yet it purported to find facts based on potentially biased information.
3. Ignoring Key Historical Context:
The opinion fails to consider the historical context of Israel's security measures, including the reasons behind the construction of the security barrier following waves of suicide bombings.
4. Exclusion of Relevant Events:
The court excluded events post-October 7, which could have provided a fuller picture of the security situation and the actions of Palestinian groups.
5. Inaccurate Definition of Territories:
The ICJ used vague terms like "occupied Palestinian territories" without a clear definition, leading to potential misinterpretations.
6. Revisionist History:
The ICJ opinion suggests a pre-existing Palestinian state before the British mandate, which lacks historical accuracy.
7. Ignoring Palestinian Terrorism:
There is no mention of Palestinian terrorism in the advisory opinion, which is a significant oversight given the context of the conflict.
_Procedural Problems_
1. Timing of the Opinion:
The opinion was released just before Shabbat, limiting the immediate ability of the Jewish community to respond, raising questions about the timing and its implications.
2. Political Motivation:
The General Assembly's request for the opinion was driven by states with no diplomatic relations with Israel, suggesting a politically motivated framing of the question.
3. Partiality Concerns:
The background and previous statements of the ICJ judges, particularly the president's history as the Lebanese ambassador, raise concerns about impartiality.
_Legal Framework Issues_
1. Application of Occupation Law:
The ICJ suggests that Gaza is occupied by Israel even after the 2005 withdrawal, a position that lacks detailed legal analysis and is contrary to some interpretations of occupation law.
2. Misinterpretation of Customary International Law:
The ICJ did not adequately consider the principle of "uti possidetis juris," which supports Israel's sovereignty over territories it held following the British mandate.
3. Ignoring Oslo Accords:
The opinion disregards the Oslo Accords, which are crucial to understanding the legal framework governing Israeli-Palestinian relations.
4. Cherry-Picking UN Resolutions:
The ICJ selectively used UN resolutions to support its conclusions, ignoring those that provide a more balanced view of the conflict.
_Broader Implications_
1. Impact on Peace Negotiations:
The opinion may undermine any future Palestinian leadership's ability to negotiate, as it sets maximalist demands as a baseline.
2. Delegitimizing Israel:
By presenting Israel as a violator of international law without thorough analysis, the ICJ risks delegitimizing the state and its actions, impacting international diplomacy.
3. Erosion of International Law:
The opinion's inconsistencies and perceived bias could erode trust in international legal institutions, making them appear as tools for political agendas rather than upholders of justice.
4. Potential for Increased Conflict:
By failing to address terrorism and the security concerns of Israel, the opinion might embolden extremist positions on both sides, leading to further instability.
In conclusion, the ICJ advisory opinion on Israel presents numerous judicial, procedural, and factual problems. Its political motivations, lack of comprehensive fact-finding, and revisionist approach to history and international law undermine its credibility and could have severe implications for peace efforts and the broader international legal framework.
Thank you very much for setting out these points concisely and so it can be easily copied.
Again, it boils down to literacy. This is why Israel has succeeded and the Palestinians have not.
@@krishnaveganathar They're very good at sucking money from the world.
It's always a pleasure to hear Natasha speaking. Thank you! ❤❤❤
Natasha, thank you for providing clarity and perspective as an exceptional international legal specialist on Israel.
Natasha, you are an amazing woman. You are a warrior for the truth. In a cesspool of lies . You are an inspiration, thank you.
Julia Sebutinde- Another hero who upholds truth.
Natasha, thank you for being Jewish Fifth Element. There is no comparison to your influence and efficiency in shaping public opinion and gaining supporters for Israel.
Such a cool calm collected very smart person….kudos to you and your clarity...
Natasha, you are a hero! 🇮🇱
Thank you Natasha for this excellent explanation.
Again, it’s about literacy and Natasha knows that better than almost anyone I’ve heard or read since Oct. 7. Judge Sabuntinde must be brilliant.
True, but surely there is a more fundamental issue. Occupation can only exist in territory where someone's sovereignty has been usurped. There has never been Palestinian sovereignty, so Israel has never occupied anything. There has, as Natasha touched on, never been any 'Palestinian territory'. Thus the world's entire argument with Israel is based on nonsense.
Israel did not send an official delegation to participate. Instead, Israel's position was represented by external legal experts and advocates. Notably, the defense included Professor Eugene Kontorovich, a prominent international law expert, who argued that the occupation is not illegal and emphasized Israel's security concerns.
UN exposed in 47 minutes-excellent stuff
Thanks Natasha for a very informative video on a difficult subject. I think most of us know the real underlying problem, which doen not bode well for solutions. Nevertheless, keep up the good work and sincere efforts.
Your development of the expertease in this area, breath of knowledge, debate and communication skills are ... inspiring.
You encourage me personally to try and do better at all my tasks, especially political commentary and trying to get the conservative message out to friends in very left leaning Massachusetts.
Thanks again, stay safe and well.
This court lacks honesty , integrity and credibility !!! It is shameful and deceitful !
I hope Natasha can find the time to write a book on this issue.
The tone in Westminster is decidedly more Anti Israel and to see the rabid anti semites stand up and given airtime is nauseating. Makes me cringe to see the path that the UK is going down.
@reuvenmagnes2540 I am utterly ashamed about the Left/Labour stance in the UK and I can promise you this is not the opinion of 89% of others either, you have so much support here. Only 20% voted for Labour but we knew they were going to win by default due to people rejecting conservatives because they did so little to prevent mass migration here.
Anyway it's backfiring big time here now, the is lambs are starting riots and trouble and it's chaos.
Take care.
Uti possidetis juris or uti possidetis iuris (Latin for "as [you] possess under law") is a principle of international law which provides that newly formed sovereign states should retain the internal borders that their preceding dependent area had before their independence.
If the ICJ has basically nullified the Oslo accords - should Israel take this opportunity and formally renounce its commitments? If the UN high-court gives no backing to the accords and the process it set out to achieve - why should Israel stay bound to it?
Brilliant
Add the purging of Christians and Jews from Lebanon since 1920.
14 LIARS , ONE HONEST PERSON , LIARS WIN! Kangaroo courts are becoming the norm. Does not go by the law , it goes by politics!
The goal is the undoing of 1948. This is just the latest, or most significant, salvo. And everyone is just sitting around and watch it happen.
Need to write down that legal term ...about borders when new countries emerging.
uti possidetis juris
@dh5142 thank you, I put it on my fridge.
Uti possidetis juris or uti possidetis iuris (Latin for "as [you] possess under law") is a principle of international law which provides that newly formed sovereign states should retain the internal borders that their preceding dependent area had before their independence.
It's essentially "possession is the law" unless contrary proven. It's also in Talmud (beginning of Baba Metzia).
Below is my compilation of information pertaining "occupation" and "settlers" that I gathered from Natasha's public engagements. Please use at your discretion.
************************
Among the most frequent and contentious accusations directed at Israel are those of "occupation" and "settler colonialism." These accusations often lead to the conclusion that Israel, as an occupying power, has no legal rights under international law to defend itself. Additionally, it is implied that Jewish inhabitants of Judea and Samaria (commonly referred as West Bank) have no legal residency in these areas. These allegations are not only frequent but also profoundly misguided and completely unfounded in fact.
It is a common and widely spread misconception that Israel's 1948 Declaration of Independence was predicated on the 1947 General Assembly Partition Resolution 181(II). This belief is not factually accurate. The resolution was not adopted under Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter and, consequently, did not possess legally binding force. Moreover, the resolution's outright rejection by the Arab League rendered it effectively null and void.
The establishment of the State of Israel was fundamentally based on the universal principle of international law known as 'uti possidetis juris' (Latin for "as [you] possess under law"). This principle dictates that newly formed sovereign states should inherit the internal borders of their preceding sovereign entities. In Israel's case, this included the borders of the British Mandate for Palestine, encompassing the Gaza Strip, the City of Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria. Therefore, upon adopting its Declaration of Independence, the State of Israel legitimately acquired title over these territories. Another fundamental principle relevant to the creation of the State of Israel is the equal applicability of law.
It is necessary to recognize that the legal principle 'uti possidetis juris,' originating in Roman Law, has been applied multiple times over the past two centuries, providing a legal foundation for the creation of various state entities, including Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon. Consequently, denying Israel its rightful status based on the 'uti possidetis juris' principle could jeopardize the statehood and legitimacy of many United Nations member states. No international legal entity would permit such a precedent.
As a result of the belligerent and illegal invasion by Arab forces in 1948, the Gaza Strip, Judea, Samaria, and East Jerusalem were occupied by Egypt and Jordan. This occupation led to the ethnic cleansing of the Jewish population and the desecration or destruction of Jewish cemeteries and synagogues. During the 1967 war, instigated by Egypt and Jordan, Israel reclaimed these territories and reinstated its rightful ownership over them.
Contrary to widely regurgitated assertions, the movement of 700,000 Israelis to Judaea and Samaria was not a result of governmental relocation efforts. This is a crucial consideration in the context of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which pertains to the deportation or transfer of populations. It is widely acknowledged that these individuals were driven by their personal ideologies and religious beliefs, choosing to settle in these regions of their own volition. Indeed, many Jews from various countries have pursued their aspiration to establish a Jewish presence in areas of historical and religious significance, such as Judea and Samaria. Consequently, labeling these individuals as 'illegal occupiers' or 'colonizers,' and suggesting that the Israeli government 'forced' them into these areas, is a profound mischaracterization of the situation. Such descriptions fail to recognize the autonomous decision-making and personal motivations that underlie their settlement in these regions.
Let me recap:
1. Israel is the rightful owner of all lands and territories of the former British Mandate of Palestine as of 1948.
2. Israel has full legal rights for self-defense.
3. Accusations of "settler colonialism" are without merit.
4. 700,000 Israeli villagers have a perfect legal foundation to reside in Judea and Samaria.
*********************************************
Thank you so much Natasha, very clear.
Too much nuance for headline quoters on the internet.
What do you expect when the head of the court is from Lebanon a country that daily attacks Israel not to mention that he always way biased against Israel. and this is the head of court. same thing relates to many of the other judges
Natasha is phenomenal!!!!!
11:40 I have heard Natasha mention this law many times, but I STILL don't understand how this sits with the UN partition plan of 1947 which we Jews agreed to? Natasha, can you pls expand on this on some point?... thanks.
@msinbalony I have noticed that NH does not engage online, I suspect that she is far too busy.
However, I watched many of her lectures, talks and interviews and I believe I am qualified to give you the same answer that she would.
UN General Assembly resolutions are not laws or decisions, they are political statements. Similarly, UN GA 181, the partition plan, was a suggestion, one which the Arabs refused to accept. If the Arabs were to accept it, it could have formed an international agreement and would have had some legal weight. From the moment the Arabs rejected it, it was dead in the water.
Furthermore, people who try to claim that the UN "created" Israel, should remember that when Israel was attacked by 7 Arab armies and the local Arab population, on 14/15 of May 1948, the UN did not lift a finger to support Israel, not voting, or any statements, not with supplies or aid, and this is when all the international experts at the time, military, diplomats and politicians, expected the war to end after a few days of blood bath, annihilating every single Jew in Israel. (As was promised by Arab leaders).
So to sum it up. UN GA 181 means nothing in international law, and the UN's beastly behaviour against Israel is nothing new.
@@AdelinaMuller Thank you for your answer, I've been wondering about this for a while.
So, are you saying that the UN partition resolution is not at all the legal basis to the institution of Israel? .. I find that confusing. We always refer to it as the legal basis, don't we? how can we use it as a basis for Israel's right to exist, but not as a basis for its legitimate borders? would appreciate your perspective.
@@msinbalony Please don’t be confused.
Do you have any other examples of the UN creating states?
I don’t know by whom you mean “We always refer to it as the legal basis”.
I certainly don’t, none of our enemies accept it, maybe some of our friends like to think that it gives Israel legitimacy, but I don’t see why they believe that we need it.
Did the UN for example vote to create Britain? USA? Frans? Poland or any other country you can name?
Would you say that these countries lack legitimacy?
Well, in my opinion, many do, but not because the UN did not vote for them, I would say that dictatorships are illegitimate, but this is another story.
I know that Natasha Hausdorff has a clip out there which says exactly why the UN is not the “creator of Israel”, and she probably says it better than me, I will see if I can find it.
Like I said, NH says it better than I do. 😊
czcams.com/video/uw2B3Q-KIFU/video.html
It is a part of a much longer talk in which she covered a few subjects.
czcams.com/video/1qS2xJPS8-4/video.html&ab_channel=MedIsraelforfred
She is 👍👍👍
Thank you for explaining why gaza and west bank is isreal territories
Crimea is SUCH a good point❤🕎🕎🕎🛐🔥
there was no Palestine before the British mandate .
if there was l a palestine ,what are ,its boarders?
Hey. Thanks to the stunning, beautiful, and of course super intelligent. Oh and Natasha H as well. 😂 Always like listening to NH.
Anyway, loved the analysis.
Quick question on application of customary international law to Israel. Was the original "splicing up of the land" from colonial occupying powers inclusive of Yo"sh and Aza? I never knew that.
Google map of the Mandate of Palestine.
It was indeed inclusive of Yos"h and Aza.
@@dh5142 I can't find that, please send link
@AJ-rd4ng
CZcams doesn't let me post links.
Simply Google; Map of The British Mandate.
There are many there, you can't fail to find it.
Love 💕 Natasha
So what will the ICJ rule on Islamist in 628 AD I think it was, or there about.. 😂
Tasha Tasha she's our gal, if she can't do it, no-one shall
Great to see her standing up to these ideologically possessed institutions.
Thank you
Could you provide a link to the dissenting opinion by Judge Sebutinde, please? On a quick internet search I was not able to find the text, unfortunately. Thank you so much for your analysis!
www.un.org/unispal/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/192-20240126-ord-01-02-en.pdf
@@uklficharitabletrust2399 Thanks for your quick response. If I am not mistaken, though, this is actually not Judge Sebutinde's dissenting opinion to the ICJ's last Advisory Opinion on Israel's presence in the so-called Occupied Palestinian Territories discussed in the video, but rather that one to the court's ruling as to the accusation of genocide promoted by South Africa earlier this year.
Sorry for the wild goose chase.
Here is the correct one.
www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/186/186-20240719-adv-01-02-en.pdf
🛐🔥🕊️🐑✝️🕎🛐🕎❤️
Im in love ..❤️❤️❤️🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱❤️❤️❤️
The "un" lost all credibility on Oct 9 23...
Pro Israel, actually knows facts AND is hot. Nice
It is becouse they know the facts that they are pro-Israel.
🇮🇱🇮🇱 AMOS:9---15--🚼✡️🕎🇮🇱🇮🇳♥️🔥🔥🔥🔥
islam and UN is like a bad marriage🤮🤮🤮
God bless and protect Israel, from a South African supporter 🇮🇱🇿🇦