Natasha Hausdorff: Why there is no illegal occupation
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 вер 2024
- #Israelkonferansen #MIFF
Natasha Hausdorff is a barrister in London and a Director of UK Lawyers for Israel.
Watch the full panel discussion here:
• Our work, challenges a...
Great to have her intellect on our side. Beautiful woman
Gorgeous!
I will be referring to the area as "Disputed" from now on. Thank you for your valuable insight Natasha.
She says the entire territory(British mandate of Palestine) became the state of Israel and Israel had the right to the whole territory when they declared independence even though the west bank and gaza wasn't part of their borders for independence but then she says the West bank is disputed territory? If the west bank was supposedly supposed to be Israel's sovereign territory from independence why is it "disputed" territory?
@@seuntimilehin3381 I guess its disputed because that is land The Arabs want for a Palestinian State. I can't see Israel handing it back over and neither should they.
The term "undocumented" also comes to mind.
@gungahlin10 Yeah Israel shouldn't hand it back and somehow expect peace Expanding settlements?
@@gungahlin10 Back to GB??
Uti possidetis juris is a general rule of international law which declares that when a new nation like Israel in 1948 comes into existence the borders of that nation are identical to the borders of the pre-independent administrative boundaries which were those of the British Mandate of West Palestine including all the land from the Jordan River, north to the sea of Galilee to Mt Hermon and south to the gulf of Aqaba, then west to the Mediterranean Sea. This territory includes Gaza, West-Bank and East Jerusalem. Therefore, the ruling of the ICC on Israel that it occupies Palestinian land is false since the land Israel now occupies was the British Mandate of Palestine, previously part of the Ottoman Turks empire, but lost to the allied forces in WWI. This land was turned over to Israel in 1948 just as the British Mandate of East Palestine was handed over to the occupying Hussein kingdom to become the nation of Jordan in 1946. ICC does not dispute Jordan's territory.
I'd like to add that; Both Egypt and Jordan surrendered formally _(that's a legal term)_ both the West Bank of Transjordan and Gaza, to Israel. So, Ms Hausdorff, with her legal-speak of much the same; is absolutely correct.
This genius young lady@Natasha is awesome. One in a million lady.❤
So smart and so beautiful...WOW!
She's incredible
Her intellect is very distracting to her beauty...
Geez, look at those gorgeous legs... and everything else, especially her mind... She is PERFECT.
Smart, compelling, presentable, clear (and beautiful legs)… many reasons to feel proud and blessed.
Love you Natasha!
The camera angle made it very difficult for me to concentrate… still i think she is certainly right 😅
Thank you Natasha !
The best explanation you can listen to.
@1.34 "Uti possidetis juris"
If anyone wants more detail on the concept of Uti Possidetis Juris, its historical origins and applications, and its misapplication re: Israel, I encourage you to read the academic article PALESTINE, UTI POSSIDETIS JURIS, AND THE BORDERS OF ISRAEL by Abraham Bell & Eugene Kontorovich, both law professors in the US. It's a freely available PDF.
Ah yes, the US, the country that arms Israel.
You mean you didn't understand it?
@@twisterli9177 I didn't read it because, as my post hinted at, I didn't deem it worthwhile as the US has a vested interest in supported a Jewish state in the Middle East, and consequently I seriously doubt the neutrality of the article.
thank you for this!
every paper needs neutrality? Really? There goes the entire humanities department. @@DepakoteMeister
In 1947 3/5 ths of the Eastern part of the British Mandate of Palestine was partitioned to create the present country of Jordan, a Muslim Kingdom run by a single family. Nobody complained about this. The following year the British gave up sovereignty of the remaining 2/5 ths and so the newly formed United Nations decided on a further partition to create a another Arab state and a Jewish state. All the Muslim countries opposed this and have never ratified this partition, which are now called the Gaza Strip/ the West Bank the Arab parts and Israel the Jewish part. So how can Israel be accused of occupying someone else's land that has never been officially ratified by anyone????
Because the Brits had no businesses promising anything to European Jews, and get bribed to be shipped to Palestine. Now though, I’m Ok Israel because the by gones are by gones!
Were nearly 1M people ethnically cleansed out of the area that is now Jordan? No? See therein lies the issue with "Israel". Besides the fact that many Jordanians are unhappy with their government but can do nothing about it. Thanks UK for creating puppet dictatorships everywhere.
89,000/117,000=3/4
Thank you for insight Natasha Hausdorff. As a German non Jew I stand with Israel.
We know about your disgusting behaviour, you don't have to remind us.
@@Andre99328 you are a righteous person, sir 🙏🏽sehr schön.
Wow, a video from a year ago, that had 1 comments on it until last week.
Natasha Hausdorff is brilliant!!!
Wow. And herein lies the important of rhetorical framing, which in this case boils down to a single false word: occupation. It could swing the entire war, depending on how it’s further accepted or rejected
She says the entire territory(British mandate of Palestine) became the state of Israel and Israel had the right to the whole territory when they declared independence even though the west bank and gaza wasn't part of their borders for independence but then she says the West bank is disputed territory? If the west bank was supposedly supposed to be Israel's sovereign territory from independence why is it "disputed" territory?
@@seuntimilehin3381 It is not Natasha Hausdorff who says it is Israel's land, it is international law that says it.
She indeed recognises that people like you dispute it, it does not make you less wrong.
@@lomgale The israeli government even says its disputed land, why does the rest of world consider it occupied territory then? It's not about "people like me", it's about building on land that does not belong to you
@@seuntimilehin3381It is totally about people like you, racist who try to claim that Jews have no right to land that they bought, just because they are Jews.
That’s one smart lady.
Well stated, clear and accurate.
WHEN YOU REPEAT A LIE LONG ENOUGH, EVEN YOU START BELIEVING IT YOURSELF. She's just trying to be SMART while actually speaking rubbish.
Palestine was partitioned by the UN and all involved were given SPECIFIC BORDERS because there has been on going conflict there over land.
THESE BORDERS GIVEN BY THE UN SHOULD BE THE ONLY ONE RECOGNIZED FOREVER. If Israel had been weak AND Palestinians took more of its UN allocated land, it will NOT be recognized.
Israel accepted this partition because MOSTLY Palestinians will lose land and be evicted from homes. Now Israel accuse the UN of being Anti-Israel. The irony. If 🇮🇱 ALWAYS wanted peace and continued support from the UN and others, all they needed to do was defend the recognized borders from enemies. Not STEAL more from the owners and natives because you won fight. That will NEVER be recognized as legal. So yes, it's OCCUPATION. And the systematic eviction of natives or discrimination against them, is called ethnic cleansing AND APARTHEID Respectfully. No amount of CLEVER words will change that.
This explanation is very helpful for laypeople to understand and refute misinformation.
Because Israel has it's own version of everything and their version should be the one accepted by everyone i guess. She just explained Israel's version of international law meaning the rest of the world is wrong and Israel alone is right. The UN and every other international humanitarian and legal organization is wrong and Israel is right as always.
@@Rogermoore-wp6jh This is utter nonsense. There is only one "version" of international law. It's the same international law that created Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Iraq. All of these countries resulted from the French and British Mandates. The only ones that aren't accepting the law are the arabs occupying Gaza (Egyptians) and the arabs occupying the west bank (Jordanians). You seriously need to read some history.
@@darylmorse i guess I need to read the zionist version of history then. The UN, ICC, and ICJ calls all of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem illegal settlements and Israel an occupier in Gaza yet here you are saying the lady in the post is right. That's why I'm telling you that there's a zionist version of everything and the lady(who according to you zionists is right and every other legal expert on earth is wrong) is simply explaining the zionist version of international law.
@@Rogermoore-wp6jh Do you have any actual counter-argument to what she has said?
@@justsomeofmyfavs you mean the lies and wrong explanations she said?
FOC
Yes natasha
This shows how strong the antiemetic propaganda machine is
I think you mean antisemitic, not antiemetic. (An emetic makes you vomit.)
@@martinbeverley9536 kinda the same as for that panel !?
@@martinbeverley9536
Not necessarily. The zionist propaganda is making me sick, as are the relentless, spurious accusations of antisemitism for any and all questions asked of Israel. I might need an antiemitic
Natasha is formidable.
After 5 Arab nations attacked Israel in 1948 they've lost ANY right whatsoever to refer to international law while discussing Israel's actions.
Who's 'they'? You realise the Palestinian people currently being bombed are not the same as the Arab regimes who went to war in 1948? They're not the same people, they're not from the same country, they're not even from the same time. Your argument makes no sense.
@@MegaLotusEaterLol they are from the same countries. There originally was no “Palestinians.” For example Yasser Arafat was born in Egypt. But the point is you can’t cry about human rights after a failed attempt to genocide the Jews
@@ahappyimago The people living in Gaza today have nothing to do with the regimes that went to war in 1948 anymore than the people living in America now have anything to do with the bombing of Hiroshima.
@@MegaLotusEater So what?
So, the innocent Palestinian civilians *do* have every right to evoke international law. The fact that 80 years ago some Arab regimes went to war with Israel is entirely irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the Palestinians today.
its the arabs who are occupying judea and samaria...not the opposite.
More people need to be educated about this👍🇦🇺
Alot of Orwellian speak...What she's saying is "There's no such thing as a Palestinian people. No natives around here. Brits made double promises but who cares! We are white, we win".
She will also never tackle the Apartheid system that Israel has created. But sure! Convince yourself that you're educated about this.
actually she does address the diversity of Israel the most inclusive in all the middle east and the fact the you use the word Apartheid shows your lack of understanding and knowledge, you must be one that thinks that all Israelis are white people from europe😊@@somethingsinlife5600
@@somethingsinlife5600 Israel is not an apartheid state. This is a fallacious slander made by Jew haters who dishonestly conflate the sovereign state of Israel with the West Bank.
Arab citizens of Israel have the same rights as every Jew. Especially if you're a female or gay Arab. It's the only place in the Middle East an Arab can vote. There are Arab political parties in Israel. Arab MPs sit in Israeli Parliament. There's an Arab on the Israeli supreme court. Arabs fight side by side with Jews in the IDF and hold positions of command. Israel is the antithesis of an apartheid state, and making this claim while ignoring the human rights abusing totalitarian dictatorships that surround it is flagrant selective outrage. Perhaps it is you who requires educating.
@@somethingsinlife5600 No apartheid - that's wrong.
Wow. There's a LOT of information there in four minutes. Only one conclusion, the complexities of customary international law need more clarification in the public space. Whatever, this eloquent lady did a fine job in trying to cover it.
Silly old United Nations getting it all so wrong.
not silly...disingenuous, corrupt, in bed with the worst...
The UN too frequently gets things wrong.
Pick and choose the UN decisions that suit you. And then there are real people and real lives.
Really wonderful woman not afraid to stand up for the Jewish people !!! Would be nice if she dressed more modestly like daughter of Israel. Not talking extreme just basic
And she has great legs too.
...and that's according to international law :P
I guess that was the logic of the camera man. Those she doesn't convince with her tight legal reasoning....
@@ronaldalanperry4875 Yes, I'm sure the cameraman was given her legal discourse his full consideration.
Interesting
Interesting
Natasha Hausdorff's tightly-reasoned and dispassionate deconstruction of the favorite shibboleth of the Anti-Israel crowd, that being the "occupation," has brought up my previously flagging respect for "barristers" by at least two levels. My only problem with her is that she is such a stunningly gorgeous woman that in order to pay proper attention to what she is saying, I have to turn away from the tv. I recommend her for the cover of the lawyer's magazine, Sports Torts Illustrated.
Get over yourself and your obsession. She is attractive. That’s it.
@@karmar22able It’s my obsession and I’ll drool if I want to. She is drop-dead gorgeous.
Brilliant explanation! 🇿🇦🇿🇦🇿🇦🇿🇦🇿🇦🇿🇦This lady is informative and impressive. With her sound knowledge of the legal system...
If you like the sound of distorted propaganda 😂😂😂
@@drriks0017 projection?
@@piege2 No, I'm not a projection... I actually exist...
The Imaginary Palestinian state:
1.Before Israel there was a British mandate, not a singular Palestinian People, Nation or State.
But a mix of Jews, Christians and Arabs (from Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon) co-existing in villages.
November 29, 1947 the United Nations adopted Resolution 181 (also known as the Partition Resolution) divided Great Britain's former Mandate into 2 Jewish and Arab states
Israel accepted the partition in 1947.
But the Arabs launched a war to murder and drive out the Jews…and have done ever since.
Wars the Arabs started, but lost.
2. Before the British Mandate, it was the Ottoman Empire, not a Palestinian state.
3. Before the Ottoman Empire, it was the Islamic state of Egypt’s Mamluks, not a Palestinian state.
4. Before the establishment of the Islamic Mamluk state from Egypt, the Arab-Kurdish Empire was the Ayyubid state, not a Palestinian state.
5. Before the Ayyubid Empire, it was the Frankish and Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem, not a Palestinian state.
6. Before the Kingdom of Jerusalem, it was the Umayyad and Fatimid states, not a Palestinian state.
7. Before the Umayyad and Fatimid empires, the Byzantine Empire was not a Palestinian state.
8. Before the Byzantine Empire, there were the Sassanids, not a Palestinian state.
9. Before the Sasanian Empire, it was the Byzantine Empire, not a Palestinian state.
10. Before the Byzantine Empire, it was the Roman Empire, not a Palestinian state.
11. Before the Roman Empire, it was a Hasmonean state, not a Palestinian state.
12. Before the Hasmonean state, it was the Seleucid state, not a Palestinian state.
13. Before the Seleucid Empire, it was Alexander’s empire, not a Palestinian state.
14. Before Alexander’s empire, it was the Persian Empire, not a Palestinian state.
15. Before the Persian Empire was the Babylonian Empire, not a Palestinian state.
16. Before the Babylonian Empire, there were the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, and it was not a Palestinian state.
17. Before the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, there was no Kingdom of Israel in the Kingdom of Israel, nor a Palestinian state.
18. Before the Kingdom of Israel, the theocracy of the twelve tribes of Israel was not a Palestinian state.
19. Before the theocracy of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, there was an accumulation of independent Canaanite city-kingdoms, not a Palestinian state.
20. The truth is that in this land kingdoms fell and fell... but there was never a State or a Palestinian people.
Palestinians are Arabs and Arabs came from the Arabian Peninsula.
They are the original inhabitants of the Arabian Peninsula.
It is pure propaganda to claim that Arabs alone are the sole inhabitants of the land or that the Palestinians are distinct peoples from the Arabs.
The family names of ‘Palestinians’ are connected to their Arab lands of origin. These were names they arrived with and the DNA they retain.
One day maybe by osmosis I'll understand all of this but for now I have an intuitive feel along those lines . Oren on Israel Traveling is pretty good but my comprehension there is also about 70% .
Lol, First it doesn't matter if it was ever an independent state, the people are living there and they have a right to self determination.
Second, your "mix of Arabs" doesn't mention that the Jews were 8% of the population. This is hardly any equal mix, why should 8% receive half the land.
Your post is the pure propaganda, read researched and documented facts such as in Ilan Pappe "The ethnic cleansing of Palestine"
Arabs were in Palastine before the Jews. The Jews kicked them out of their homes at gunpoint in 1948. It's called ethnic cleansing.
Amazing post ty
A lesser discussed and known fact, is that Arab states - Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and others - have driven out 800,000 Jews from their lands since 1947. None of those Jews were offered land, a district, a principality, an inch of land within the borders of these Arab lands. Nor did the world rally to support these disposessed Jewish families. The 'Palestinians' have also rejected 2 state peace solutions, multiple times since 1947. Most famously in recent times Clinton bemoaned Arafat's 'colossal error' . Yasser Arafat's biggest mistake was to reject a peace deal brokered by the United States in 2000, which would have given him much of what he had demanded for the Palestinians for 40 years. If you don't want peace you act like Hamas and the Palestinian leadership. Peace means the EU, the US, and UN stop paying billions $$ in 'Aid' to corrupt terror leaders living in luxury in Qatar and elsewhere. @@katiegallus6876
You can't occupy what was yours to begin with. To all the jew haters, go learn some history
There is biblical or historical claim for a Zionist state in Palastine. You're just making one up. Fact.
'No claim'
God isn't a real estate agent
@johngreylove1359 you're right. Land doesn't belong to anyone. The strongest gets to keep it.
@@johngreylove1359 he is the Land was given to Israel over 3000 years ago.
A very clear and helpful explanation of Israel's position in the Occupation debate.
this is the long lecture she refers - ua-cam.com/video/LCLPB2ibGNQ/v-deo.html (Jerusalem and the Israeli settlements according to international law - Natasha Hausdorff)
I cannot understand how Judea & Samaria can be classed as “disputed territory.” The Palestinian Arabs have never at any time in history owned that territory or any part of it. Israel recovered it from Jordan, not the Palestinians, in 1967. Jordan had conquered and held that territory illegally since the 1948/49 war with Israel so how is it possible for it to suddenly become “disputed Palestinian territory?”
In 1922 the entire territory, between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea, was given to World Jewry as their National Homeland under the legally recognised and binding Mandate for Palestine 1922 issued by the League of Nations. That decision was made following discussions at the San Remo Conference in 1920 when representatives of the Jewish peoples and the Arab peoples met with the victorious principle allied war powers of WW1 (Britain, the U.S., France, Italy and Japan.) The purpose of the San Remo conference was to agree on how the territory, which had been ruled for the previous 400 years by the Turkish Ottoman Empire, was to be allocated between the native peoples of those lands having legitimate claims to them.
They agreed at San Remo that the Mandate for Mesopotamia (now Iraq) and the Mandate for Syria should both be given to the Arabs and the Mandate for Palestine should be given to the Jewish people in recognition of their 3,500-year-old unbroken connection to that territory. Jews have been living in Israel continuously since around 1406 BCE -- from the time when the Assyrian Empire was still a major force in the Middle East.
No provision was made for the so-called ‘Palestinian People’ during the San Remo talks because no such race existed at that time. It was not until 44 years later that Yasser Arafat and his KGB friends in Russia invented them to use as a propaganda weapon against Israel. They were armed with the slanderous narrative that the Jews had stolen their land and the entire Jewish State was a European colonialist construct that had to be destroyed by any means necessary including ceaseless acts of terrorism. Hence, the shouts we hear today from Jew-haters around the world “from the (Jordan) river to the (Mediterranean) sea, Palestine will be free.” They mean, of course, free of Jews. In other words, they are calling for the genocide of the Jewish People in their own ancestral Homeland and for Israel to be replaced with yet another Islamic state.
But the facts speak for themselves. The Jewish State is not "occupying" a single inch of land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea that does not belong to them both legally under international law since the League of Nations Mandate 1922 was issued to them and historically for thousands of years.
Spot on; wel put!
You are not allowed to tell the truth.
It's disputed cos the Arabs want it. That's all.
It's not disputed. It's Arab territory. There is no such thing as Israel and never was any state of isreal
@@johngreylove1359
Has there ever been a land called Israel?
What a beautiful and brilliant woman Natasha is... God bless her!
Natasha, thank you !
This felt worth a watch for me while I’m trying to learn about different people’s viewpoints :)
Brilliant! I watched several times to bake sure i got everything
And thus you coped with the audio quality. Good then .
Alot of mumbo jumbo and Orwellian speak...What she's saying is "There's no such thing as a Palestinian people. No natives around here. Brits made double promises but who cares! We are white, we win".
She will also never tackle the Apartheid system that Israel has created. But sure! Convince yourself that this was "Brilliant" and thus you are too for "Understanding it".
@@somethingsinlife5600 no idea what your last sentence even means
@@irlshrek I made two replies. Are both visible? Or is youtube bugging/deleting comments again. Which specific sentence are you referring to?
"Uti possidetis juris"
Jews are from Judea, Arabs are from Arabia.
Almost a million Jews were kicked out of Arab lands in 1948, (my grandparents included). So Jews aren't allowed to live in Arab lands, which they had done long before Islam existed, and we're not allowed to live in our ancient ancestral homeland.
So where are we supposed to live??
Don't ask, it's in Judea, period.
You've got your land already. Is it not big enough? Why are settlers so greedy that they want more lands in the West Bank?
Lol spectactular ignorance. The Arabs alone posess some 22 countries spread out across N. Africa, and the Mideast, there are some 56 nations that are Islamic with most of the world's oil wealth and a tiny postage stamp that is 0.01% of the Mideast called Israel is the problem??
Btw the West Bank is the revisionist term most racists use for Judea, just like 'palestine' is used to replace the name and identity of the land of Israel, for the same purpose. Why is that people who don't know anything support pa-lie-stein? @@chaselee86
23% of the land is Jewish Palestine, called Israel, 77% of the land is Arab Palestine, called Jordan. They got most of it, end of the discussion. If you wanna free the rest of Palestine go to Jordan.@@chaselee86
@@lapamful 1948 border does not include west bank and Gaza. Of course you would say it's because the Palestinians did not accept two states solution, so Israel can take whatever they want after the war. But to be realistic, the only way of peace is Hamas and PLO should be removed, Palestinians should accept two-state solution, but at the same time Israel should also honour the original border, and settlers should retreat from their settlements.
Genius.
Intelligent and beautiful.
... and wrong.
@@ibntulun9405 The law states otherwise.
@@fishbmw You mean her interpretation of the law states otherwise. An interpretation which is hard to find outside of a few pro-Israel legal experts seemingly in recent years only. Plenty of other interpretations out there that suggest otherwise. Not to mention the international community as a whole since 1948.
Apart from anything else. To my knowledge (I'm interested to know if this is the case) Israel itself has never used the Uti Possidetis Juris argument and has treated the West Bank as an occupied territory.
@@ibntulun9405 citations needed
"The Mandate for Palestine is valid to this day. Article 80 of the UN charter implicitly recognizes the Mandate for Palestine of the league of nations. This Mandate granted Jews the irrevocable right to settle in the area of Palestine, anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea; a right unaltered in international law and is valid to this day. Jewish settlements in Judea, Samaria (i.e. the West bank), Gaza and the whole of Jerusalem are legal". From Eli E. Hertz,"This is my Land".
The "Palestinian Authority, however declared a State of Palestine in 1988 in Algiers. On November 11 2012, the State of Palestine was recognized by the UN. According to international law, a state is declared on land that is under ones control. So, why is everyone trying to create a state that already exists? Because the world feels the need to eternally fight the Jews.
What makes the mandate valid?
@AdegbengaOgungbeje The creation of State of Israel (including what people love to call the "Westbank") was voted by the UN. After the Majority of members voted Yes Israel wad born. Immediately after Ben Gurion made his famous declaration, five Arab armies attacked Israel and Jordan succeded in ilegally occupying Judea and Samaria and expelled all the Jews from the area. In the 1967 war Israel managed to reclaim its land but did not expell all the Arabs there, and that's when the propaganda war against the Israel began; calling Israeli settlements there an "illegal ocupation", which is baloney because J&S were an integral part of the land designated for the State of Israel in the first place and was voted by the UN. Because the world has always had a problem with the Jews it has always been looking for ways to pester it...
Nevertheless, because of reality, Israel thought it was a good idea to give the Arabs in J&S an autonomy over their lives and (stupidly) gave them a small state in Gaza, which we all know was abused and use as a platform for continued war against Israel.
@@sharonjb.y111 So if the UN nations vote that all Israelis should leave and the area becomes a Palestenian state you would agree?
@@sharonjb.y111 Stop lying. The world didnt have a problem with Jews until Zionism reared its ugly head.
@@sharonjb.y111 Stop lying. Judea and Samaria were not part of the 56 % based on resolution 181.
Very enlightening
My love has very beautiful legs. Well...she is gorgeous from head to toe!
She is such an eloquent, intelligent orator without hesitation or deviation. I could listen to her all day.
This woman is a lethal instrument against stupidity and hysteria
It takes two to tango...
WTF you babbling about???
Thanks.
She is brilliant
If it's not an illegal occupation but instead legally a part of Israël proper, then you can't claim it's not an apartheid in the areas where Israeli Jews are subject to Israeli Civil law and protections and Palestinians are subject to Israeli Military law.
You are wrong.
The Palestinians have an autonomy.
They are citizens of that autonomy.
Area C with a small number of Arabs, is still waiting to be resolved. Expect it to come compliantly under Israeli rule once the current problems are dealt with. The small number of Arabs who live in area C, will then be able to apply for Israeli citizenship.
The West Bank is neither illegally occupied nor a part of Israel proper. If it was the former then what legal entity would it be illegally occupying? And clearly it's not the latter because it's either under autonomous Palestinian control to do with as they please or Israeli military control, no part of which is part of Israel proper nor subject to its laws, including the settlements.
@@kovie9162 if it's not part of Israel proper and they are building settlements and installing various checkpoints through out, isn't that occupation? She says Jordan occupied the west bank but then Israel isn't occupying the West bank?
Brilliant!
Strange that an expert on international law neglected to mention 2 key issues:
1. That Jordan occupied the Judea and Samaria illegally, having conquered it during the 1948 war which the Arabs started. The law says when territory is taken from an illegal occupier, it is forfeit, for there is no legal entity to return it to. A thief can't say give back what I stole. The "Palestinians" hadn't yet invented themselves and they are irrelevant to that situation. The Jordanians had 19 years to create a "Palestinian" state in the West Bank, and they didn't, for a well known reason.
2. In 1967 Jordan attacked Israel unprovoked and after being begged not to. The law says about territory taken from an attacker during the resultant war, that it is forfeit and there's no duty to return it.
The speaker did fill in one very important fact - the explanation why Jordan was actually an illegal occupier in the West Bank.
@user-ws6cp3np7t You are wrong.
She talks about these things in length.
This was simply a very short introduction to her other talks.
Look for them.
I did my best to listen but to much distraction from extraneous sounds .
Awwww...Back to the video games for you, then!
So: 2 countries declared independence in 1948 - The Kingdom of Jordan and Israel.
Both countries agree on both their territories and have no beef between them over territories.
The Palestinians (who did not declare independence in 1948 because they rejected the UN resolution) therefore have no legal right over eithed Jordan or Israel.
On the Oslo accords (1993) Israel agreed to establish a Palestinian state, and the territory of it was agreed by both Israel and Palestine - it is the same territory that exists today.
Therefore the term Occupation doesn't apply to Jordan because Jordan does not consider Judea to be their territory. And the term doesn't apply on Palestine since it's territory had not been occupied by Israel since it's establishemnt in 1993.
And so, the conclusion is, that once Israel will annex Judea, as long as it doesn't include the Palestinian territories (Oslo accords), it will not be an occupation by international law.
@SesameMilk
Correct, with one caveat. The Oslo Agreement, out of which the Palestinians received control over the only territory they ever controlled, placed one obligation on the Palestinians. To stop terror. They never, not even for one hour of one day, complied with that obligation. Israel will be fully within its rights to remove the Palestinian control from the territory it placed in their hands.
Then why are so many Israeli settlers move into West Bank?
@@chaselee86 Why shouldn't they?
Would you for example complain about Arabs moving to Europe?
You do know that Jews are already cleansed from Gaza and areas A and B. Would you call to remove Palestinians from Israeli area?
Coz it is covered by the unilateral Balfour Declaration sponsored by the British & powered by the UN in 1917..
UN? 1917?
This is the most preposterous arguments I have every heard.
Israel through force and collusion with foreign powers prevented the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Then this women over 70 years later justifies that aggression by saying the land is not occupied because a Palestinian state never existed.
No honest person can take this seriously.
Complete falsification of history, as befits a Muslim. It's the Arabs who rejected the partition plan and establishment of their state in mandate Palestine.
You need to learn some history. The Arabs were offered their own state by UN as were the Jews. The Arabs said No. The Jews said yes. Established Israel. Then the Arab neighbours ganged up, started a war to end Israel. But they lost and failed. Now they're salty about ' not having a state' ? The Arabs want ALL the land, not peace with Israel. It is not occupied land. It is land the 'Palestinians' missed out on through passing or losing wars to kill the Jews.
Very simple explanation on Isrzel as an occupier
Thank you
How can jew occupie Arabs in Judea, that's just stupid. Arabs have no connection to Israel, there is not one city or town that is originally Arab in this land, Palasatanian national movement was born around 1964.
@yigalmit I agree with you..Israel is not an occupier country
And you've completely ignored the whole content. Not surprising.
What?? Did I hear that? The West Bank was territory that Israel 'recovered' in 1967? 😂
Yup, the territory was given to the Jews by the Mandate.
@@rennyskiathitis8178 'Yup'? It was understood that the mandate would implement the Balfour Declaration. But the BD didn't specify how much of Palestine would be given to a Jewish state (hence partition plans). The borders of Israel, at the time of recognition as a member of the UN, and in every subsequent jurisdiction are the pre-1967 borders. Hausdorff has done some interesting legal footwork here but it doesn't wash - no-one buys it.
The other issue, rather obviously, is that if one were to argue that the West Bank is NOT occupied then what of the status of the Palestinian Arabs who have no legal rights? They should count as full citizens of Israel. If not, then it's clearly apartheid. She can't have it both ways.
The original borders of the Palestine Mandate in 1920 also included the Kingdom of Jordan and the Golan Heights. The first was created by the British to reward their Hashemite allies against the Ottomans. The Golan was given to French Syria. So, only Palestine west of the Jordan River remained in the Mandate. Skipping forward to 2023, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan has a large Palestinian majority including Queen Rania. And there also are two Palestinian statelets in the Palestinian Authority and Gaza. The remaining State of Israel is the size of Belgium, mostly desert. But that has not assuage Palestinian Arab jihadist ambitions.
She was referring to the doctrine of uti possidetis juris. Her claim is that since Israel was the only state to accept the UN partition, they inherited the whole territory of the British Mandate. She could have elaborated on that. It didn't help that someone coughed when she finished her sentence.😅
@@ibntulun9405The relevant resolution was the UN declaration 181, not the Balfour Declaration. Zionists accepted it. Arabs rejected it. Her Uti possidetis juris argument is plausible on the basis that only one party accepted the deal. I wouldn't agree that no one accepts it.
As to your 'can't have it both ways' claim, that is also plausible. I'd like to hear her answer to that.
It was neither palestinian nor jews according to all this, but boundaries were established and trespassed.
Yeah and pigs can fly also.
Maybe someone can enlighten me -- if the land should be Israeli (and I agree that it should), why has Israel not formally annexed the region and invited Palestinians to become Israeli citizens, rather than continue to deal with them according to military law?
I mean, I get Israel needs to protect itself, and I understand the need to retain a Jewish majority, but does this not then contribute to the often-held idea of an apartheid state?
Israel will, when the time is right, include Area C under Israeli law. At this time, Arabs living in this area (small numbers) will be able to apply for Israeli citizenship. Areas A and B are, under agreement with the Palestinians, a Palestinian Autonomy. Israel is not forced to include citizens of other entities as its own citizens.
It is also ridiculous to expect Israel to accept them as citizens, given that they are already citizens of an enemy entity.
Ok, let's ignore UN (both security council and general assembly) resolutions, International Criminal Court and Israel supreme Court opinions, but if it's not an occupation and it's Israeli territory, what about 5 mln Palestinians in those territories? Are you going to give them Israeli citizenship then? Or does it mean it's apartheid regime?
So every nation in the world agrees the settlements are illegal except this lawyer ? You have to be kidding.
Every nation does not agree that settlements are illegal. She is not the only international legal scholar who says the same thing. Look at the work of Eugene Kontorovich, Alan Baker, Jacques Gautier to name a few. Frankly your unquestioning reliance on "every nation in the world" speaks more of your predelictions than anything else.
No, I don't think she is kidding. Try watching again and this time, park your bias and pay attention to what actually says.
I bet you listen to the human rights council made of China, north korea and Venezuela. 🤦♂️
I'm waiting for your response. All I hear is crickets.
@@sjruddell Kontorovich, Baker and Gautier are not nations. As I said in a reply elsewhere: the consensus of the international community (inc the US) is that the territories are occupied. Yes, there are going to be a handful of legal experts who are going to argue against that. To my knowledge, Israel itself has never put forward the UPJ argument that our Tash does here. As someone else has argued, it's all academic. As long as there's no international pressure on Israel to withdraw from the West Bank it's all irrelevant.
If there is no illegal occupation it must be a 57 year legal occupation and Israel commiting the crime of apartheid must be lawful in their eyes
You have been asleep for many years.
During the time you were asleep, they created the Palestinian Authority, as a compromise over the disputed land.
You need to wake up, smell the coffee, and realise that you need to re-strategise your claim, becouse this one doesn't work anymore.
We distract from state sponsored genocide.
Why doesn't she have a wikipedia entry?
This is an impressive case of historical revisionism through the selective use of a legal concept that had a specific application in a very different set of examples.
Can anyone tell me if this is the official Israeli stance? Because if it is, surely to consider that Palestine has no right to exist is just as reprehensible as the Hamas charter calling for the eradication of Israel.
If uti posseditis juris makes the borders of Israel encompass all of the British Mandate of Palestine, then all of those Arabs living in what are considered to be occupied territories should surely be granted Israeli citizenship. Surely it is not acceptable to be denying rights to some of your citizens that others enjoy.
She works for an organisation of pro-Israel lawyers. Her argument is politically partisan and should be taken with a pinch of salt. Hers is a fringe view. Whereas mainstream human rights NGOs are politically independent and *all* disagree with her.
Except in 1950, 1967, and many tines after and in between, Israel proposed, offered, and asked for a peaceable resolution, including the creation of a "palestinian Arab" state...
@@knowhere60 You mean in 1967 when Israel started a war?
@@weaq84Israel has never started a war. It has, however, performed pre-emptive strikes. That is simply war tactics, which helped the nascent state prevail against Islamo-fascism.
So, if it's all Israel, why aren't all the people living in Israel Israeli civillians with full Israeli rights?
Because some of them are citizens of the Palestinian autonomy.
Do you think Israelis should have rights in the Palestinian autonomy?
Even if you are stupid enough to say yes, the Palestinian president, who runs the Palestinian autonomy, has already declared that no Israeli will have any rights in the Palestinian autonomy.
So please read and repeat.
The Palestinian autonomy is where the Palestinian rights are manifested.
The Palestinian lack of human rights in the Palestinian autonomy is a Palestinian issue, not an Israeli problem.
@@אלכספיין There is no Palestinian autonomy.
Israel has 100 per cent control over everything between Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea. Israel refuses to recognize Palestinian state.
As such, everyone living between Jordan and Mediterranean is living in Israel. Yet, only some people (Jews) are citizens with basic human rights. While others are treated like sub-human animals, simply because they're not Jewish.
If Israel wants to control all land, then everybody there is Israeli.
If Israel doesn't want native Palestinians to be Israeli citizens, then they should leave.
@@danielburger1775 Next time you can, take a look at the UN GA. There is a Palestinian autonomy representative there.
Hamas had full affective control in Gaza. The PA control are A in Judea and Samaria.
It must be obvious even to you, that if Israel had 100 per cent control over everything. We would not have had 239 hostages in Gaza for the last 45 days.
This is why they say, that if a Palestinian supporter could not lie, he, or she, would have nothing to say.
@@אלכספיין Hsmas never had full control. All electricity, fuel, water etc. has been turned off by Israel.
And Israel has total control over the West Bank too.
Israeli soldiers use Palestinians in Gaza Strip and West Bank for target practice. Israel totally controls all checkpoints.
Hamas no more had control over Gaza than prison inmates have over the prison.
Israel is a racist, military state. Just admit it.
@@danielburger1775 You are wrong.
Hamas had full effective control. It had its own tax collectors, government, courts, executioners, police and Army of barbarian terrorists. International Law recognizes these as effective control.
In addition, Israel only supplied Gaza with 10% of its water and 50% of its electricity. But even if it was supplying 100%, it only means that Hamas was importing these, like many other independent authorities elsewhere who import energy or other materials.
As for "target practice" if you were to observe these incidents, you would see that rather than Israeli soldiers "using them as targets", it is the Palestinians who offer themselves. In other words, if Palestinians would not attack Israelis, they would not get shot.
Of course, Israel controls the checkpoints. Apart from the intense security need to do so, it is Israel's right to control its border, like any other country in the world that wishes to do so.
Then you use the prison canard. When you find another prison where the "inmates" are able to horde 10s of thousands of rockets, spend billions of dollars on terror facilities and boast 40,000 armed terrorists, come back and tell me about it. Until then, you are just a cheap liar.
Hey Natasha! She said 'That isnt going to be Israels borders indefinitely.' Didnt u say the inherit the borders of the previous state. Are the borders defined or fluid? Make up ur mind now.
Thank you for defining imperialism underwritten by a military jackboot, be it across the America's, Africa,Asia and innthe Middle east
Bizarre argument.
how so?
Lots of waffle. No arguments, no facts
Ask a grownup to explain it to you.
sick
So does that mean Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are Israeli? 0.o
No,
It means that they are palestians livining in Palestinian autonomy. (past tense for Gaza).
@@Mobile-ik8vr They are Muslim Arabs from Arabia squatting in Judea.
@@Mobile-ik8vr there isn't any Palestinian autonomy? Any Palestinian government in the WB would be beholden to Israel. You could also make that argument that Gaza isn't autonomous either because of the Israeli-Egyptian blockade.
@@notaloneinrsa1345 You could say many things, but you would not be less wrong.
The Palestinians are citizens of the Palestinian autonomy, they even have representation in the UN.
They have a president, they have a prime minister, they have a government. They are heinous and corrupted but that is to be expected from any Palestinian-run institution.
but it is not a point to discuss. the Palestinian Territories are occupied by Israel. there are 193 countries in the world. 192 of them declaring the Palestinian Territories as occupied. can it really be clearer than that? when will you people come to understand that u living in your own bubble that's completely detached from reality?
No, Israel is its own state, acknowledged allover the world. Stop lying.
@@SladeL @ednaal-najar3192 recognised the that Israel is its own state. The issue is the borders. In this video Hausdorff presents an interpretation of international law which says the West Bank is not occupied; she presents this interpretation as being definitive. It isn't. It's a fringe argument that almost no-one agrees with.
Hamas does not recognize Israel as a state @@ibntulun9405
@@ibntulun9405 it doesn't matter how many agree or disagree. Over 5 billion Muslims and Christians collectively agree that Judaism is a cancelled and void religion. Following your logic Jews should drop Judaism? Saying that the majority disagrees is not a valid argument. You have to bring another counter argument that is based on the existing international law.
@@ibntulun9405 it doesn't matter how many agree or disagree. Over 5 billion Muslims and Christians collectively agree that Judaism is a cancelled and void religion. Following your logic Jews should drop Judaism? Saying that the majority disagrees is not a valid argument. You have to bring another counter argument that is based on the existing international law.
Hi, Natasha Hausdorff, please remind me: which part of the land exactly is/should be Palestinian?
I can't answer for Natasha but the obvious answer is Jordan. Which is 75% of the original Land of Israel.
Depends. They'd have their own state today if they'd agreed to it the dozens of times Israel offered it
@@אלכספיין Wow, because the Jewish people lived there untill 1400 years (according to Bibi himself) ago??? Would be a wonderfull world if all over the world people would reclaim 'their' lands wich they lost over 1000 years ago!!
@@ozricaurora Because the great powers of the time took 80% of Palestinian land and even the remaining 20% Israël would invade and colonise for decades. The UN General Assembly has condomned Israel for this over a 100 times. Stop looking for false excuses, just look at a current map of the Westbank and watch what's left for the Palestinian people. And every day they get killed, chased away and their homes burned so Jewish settlers could take their place. All of this secured and backed up by the Israelian army and legalised by the government of Israel.
the part of land they came from, egypt and arabian peninsula.
laws and justice are not synonymous, the State of Palestinian should have been granted sovereignty in 1947-48
It was offered in 1947. The Arabs refused it and on quite a few other occasions.
@@lomgale many thanks for your reply (:
It's not really up to Israel alone to define international Law, to be fair.
To be fair, you talk nonsense.
Israel does not define International law. The reason it is called international law is becouse it is agreed upon (defined) internationally.
@@EyalHarari yes and more than 95% of countries and the UN disagree with here,
@@chrisdunbar3400 Sound like a lynch mob.
(cut from the net). " J'ai été frappé par le paragraphe suivant de l'excellent article de Michal Aharony : " Ce qui est si difficile à accepter dans l'hypothèse d'Arendt sur la « banalité du mal » - et ce qui a suscité l'opposition au livre en Israël - c'est qu'elle posait ici une nouvelle sorte de conscience. Contrairement au jugement rendu lors du procès, Arendt ne pensait pas qu'Eichmann devait « fermer ses oreilles à la voix de la conscience » ou qu'il manquait complètement de conscience, mais que la voix de la conscience de la société allemande « respectable » ne lui dites pas qu'il devrait se sentir coupable de ses actes. "Le même mécanisme n'est-il pas à l'œuvre dans la société israélienne ?".
You are a monster.
Shame on you.
She works for an organisation of pro-Israel lawyers. Her argument is politically partisan and should be taken with a large grain of salt. Hers is a fringe view. Whereas mainstream human rights NGOs are politically independent and *all* disagree with her.
Just going to copy and paste what you think is an intelligent view?
@@kelleygreengrass Like any reasonable person, I'm convinced by the overwhelming majority of legal opinion on this matter, which disagree with her. Hers is a fringe view.
But you go ahead and copy and paste her fringe view.
@@MegaLotusEater I didn't copy and paste anything but I saw this exact comment regurgitated on another thread because ppl like you grasp onto one thing you think is revolutionary and post it everywhere waiting for the "good boy" to come in like a dog.
@@kelleygreengrass You spotted I copied/pasted the same comment once. Congrats. You get a medal.
@@MegaLotusEater thanks I like shiny things
Hold on now Natasha. U have moved from the word 'pre-existing state' to 'entity'. Was the entity a state or not?
No illegal occupation? WhAT?
Yes. Exactly. Not by the Zionists, at least. If there's any illegal occupation it is by the other party, who shall remain nameless, as they are nameless wandering Arabs from Arabia.
In March 2019, Netanyahu told his Likud colleagues: “Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas … This is part of our strategy - to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.”20 Oct 2023
“In recent months, Israel has quietly provided some relief as part of an unofficial, Egyptian-brokered truce with Hamas, in exchange for reduced rocket fire from the territory and the scaling back of weekly protests along the border. It has allowed Qatar to deliver millions of dollars in cash to allow Hamas to pay its civil servants and has allowed the United Nations to step up aid efforts.”
Netanyahu allowed Qatar to bring cash to Hamas in exchange for an end to the violence.
Israel, however, was not financing Hamas. It was letting Qatar move money in. As outrageous as that was, it was part of the same system that had Israel providing water and power to Gaza. And the entire agreement in which Israel regularly transfers money and provides services to the P.A., which is no better than Hamas.
The Oslo Accords were essentially a deal in which Israel provided terrorists with territory and money in exchange for peace. That agreement, like all subsequent ones, failed.
The actual source is supposedly the biography of Haim Ramon, who had not served in the government since 2009, and certainly not in the Likud.
Ramon, a leftist politician, had been convicted of sexual harassment, partially ending his political career. He certainly had not been a Likud member and was not attending any such meetings, raising serious credibility issues regarding the quote.
Are you tired leave the stupid narrative in every channel?😂😂
There's no evidence he even said that
So lets help Natasha out. She says 'Israel recovered territory from Jordanian Occupation'. That assumes it was initially Israels. When was the West Bank Israels? Secondly, she stated it was under Jordanian occupation. Thats inccorrect. Jordan illegally annexed the territory. An annexation and occupation are not the same terms. She is an international lawyer and should know better.
she's knows more than you'll know in your pathetic life... you can even spell.
It's the "Affirmation to Negate" clause of the International Convention on Genocide that mandates airstrikes on innocent civilians apparently....
What racist cows!!
WHAT IT IS NOT OCCUPATION BECAUSE BLABLABLABLA....IT IS OCCUPATION. BECAUSE THEY WERE PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES IN THE DIVIDIÓN MADE TO DO TWO STATES.
You would be correct if the Palestinians declared sovereignty in 1948, but they didn’t. Israel was the only state to emerge from the British Mandate and therefor under ICC international law, Israel inherited the boarders of the previous sovereign state from Britain, which includes Gaza and the West Bank. Under ICC the term Occupation only applies when one country occupies another countries territory. Underlining word here is country, which Palestine is not. So according to ICC, you can’t occupy your own land, which is exactly what Israel is doing.
@@kavemanjosh you win wars you get to write history books basically the west won ww2 and they invaded commited genocide 1947 thrn claimed this land as israel
@@Human-rights4allThe West invaded "Palestine"? Do you actually know the history, or do you make it up as it suits you? What about human rights for the Jews? Ahh, I see. They don't have any. The universal declaration of human rights was written as a result of the Holocaust of the Jews. And yet since then, it has been weaponized exclusively against the Jews. Get lost.
If it were the other way round and it went from 90% native Zionists to Zionists becoming the minority and you were thrown out of your homes your family had lived in for generations and ended up living in an apartheid state while the colonialists were granted a state of their own, you too would categorise this as bull.
Your problem is that you based your theory on lies.
Israel did not "thrown out" anybody, it was attacked, by 7 Arab armies and the local Arab population, with the stated intention of annihilation.
Many Arabs escaped, before and during the fighting. Those who remain are today the only Arabs in the Middle East who live in a free democracy. Both the apartheid claim and the colonialism slur are dirty lies.
But as a Palestinian supporter, if you could not relay on lies, you would have nothing to say.
@@EyalHarari @EyalHarari None of this violence existed until Zionists moved into Palestine from everywhere other than Palestine and at an unprecedented rate, protected and facilitated by the largest colonialists of all time, the British. You seriously believe you can move into a territory and displace and disrupt the local population for your own selfish goals and everything will just be fine. Grow up. And by the way, I want everyone to live together peacefully, not one side more than another, I condemn the actions of Hamas but in my experience I am yet to have a discussion with a Zionist where they're not putting themselves first.
Which has what to do with what ACTUALLY happened and the ACTUAL applicable laws? Kindly refer us to any laws that were broken or other violations of existing norms up till 1967.
@@davebown8145 Again, what facts do you have to support any of this? Show me where any people already there were illegally displaced by immigrating Jews? You're speaking in vague generalities without any supporting facts, and substituting anger for substance.
@@kovie9162 Deir Yassin, there's but one.
Natasha said a new state that comes into being inherits the administrative boundary of a state that preceeded it. What state preceeded Israels formation? Now she has tied herself up in knots. If she says Palestine, that means Palestine was a state. If not Palestine, what was the state and did Israel forcefully impose a new state on already established state.
If yes, then its true that Israel has no legal right and have occupied a state.
Not a "state", but a legally recognized administrative entity, which she clearly states was the British Mandate.
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN
Yes, an antisemite Jew.