The Honest Take

speaker-0: So frankly, when Mehdi Hassan and others have said to me, well, is Amnesty International wrong then and Human Rights Watch is wrong and the UN is wrong and the ICJ, yes, the answer, Mehdi and others, is yes, they're all wrong for the same reasons because they're all regurgitating the same false information.

speaker-1: Welcome to The Honest Take, the show that goes past the headlines to find out what's actually true about Israel and the people covering it. I'm Ben Chertoff, and today we're talking to British barrister Natasha Hausdorff about how international law is being weaponized against Israel and why the West is next. The word genocide used to mean something specific. It required intent. It required the targeted destruction of a people as such. It was a word reserved for Auschwitz, for Rwanda. Now it's a headline. It's a hashtag. Now it's the default frame for every mainstream news outlet covering the war in Gaza. And that's not an accident. In January 2024, the International Court of Justice issued an order. The headlines read, ICJ finds genocide plausible. But that's not what the court said. The court's own president went on the BBC and corrected the record and almost nobody reported the correction. The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for the prime minister of Israel and his former defense minister on a legal standard that inverted the burden of proof. At The Hague, three countries, Brazil, Chile, and Belize, are quietly trying to rewrite the definition of genocide itself, to weaken the intent requirement, to lower the bar. This is lawfare. And Israel is the test case. Our guest today has spent years inside these courtrooms. She's taken the genocide libel apart, line by line. The ICJ, the ICC, amnesty, all of And she's sounding an alarm that goes far beyond one country. What's being done to Israel is being engineered to be done to all of us. Natasha Hausdorff, welcome to The Honest Take.

speaker-0: It's really a pleasure to be with you.

speaker-1: You are a British barrister. went to Oxford. You clerked for the Chief Justice of the Israeli Supreme Court. Your family has lived in Israel for, is it true, eight straight generations? Wow.

speaker-0: Since 1847, yeah.

speaker-1: Yeah. ⁓ So before we get into the ⁓ heady international law, I wanted to ask you the personal question. When you walk into the UN chamber and start arguing about Israel, who is in the room with you? Are you the lawyer or the descendant?

speaker-0: well certainly both but it very much depends on the topic and the conversation. When talking about international law, I very much see myself as being, in a sense, when I said defendant, a defender of international law and the international rule of law and I think that's critical. So I speak about other subjects, not just Israel. And that's important because international law has to be universally applicable. It's just interesting that I mostly get asked to speak about Israel these days. And part of that, I'm sure, is because the coverage of the conflict in the last two and a half years and everything related to Israel, news-wise, is wall to wall, which I know is honest reporting you guys will be extremely familiar with. But I think that especially in the context of Israel, the fact that my commentary analysis is informed by what is pretty rare, I think, outside of Israel, which is an understanding, a real understanding of the facts and the reality of how the country operates, that is certainly informed by my family history there, by my own experiences living in Israel, working in Israel, and my experiences of the legal system in Israel. And I think that's a real advantage. We often say that jurors are bringing their own life experience to cases that they sit on. And here, ⁓ I'm not just drawing upon the law, my understanding, my analysis of it, but also my personal knowledge from being on the ground and in recent times also joining ⁓ delegations of military experts into Gaza, meetings with officials. policymakers and lawyers that are really impacting the day-to-day application of a lot of these international law rules on the ground.

speaker-1: The UN hostile environment, you have also gone on Piers Morgan. ⁓ There is an episode where for 76 minutes he and Dave Smith are really going at you simultaneously. is it actually like in that room? And is there any point where you want to say like, this is pointless?

speaker-0: I'm afraid frequently there have been situations in which exchanges have felt pointless either because people weren't listening or because I wasn't being permitted to speak or in many, many instances because I'm having the sound turned down. I mean, there was a recent interview, well, I thought it was an interview, it was sprung on me at the last moment that it was a debate, which of course I have no ⁓ hesitation grappling with, so long as I'm permitted to speak. And in this recent sort of, you know, debate ambush with Owen Jones, I had the sound turned down and only realised, you know, after the event that what I was saying was simply not audible to the audience. So those are situations in which, you know, that element of what on earth is the point does feature. You know, I will be perfectly frank about that. But then the flip side of that is the response and the comments that I get back where it's perfectly evident to people. when I haven't been permitted to speak, or it's perfectly evident to people when, you know, the host is simply unwilling to accept the reality and the analysis that I'm putting forward. And I think that's then just as valuable, outing these ridiculous positions, outing the hypocrisy and clearly the bias in many of these situations. And so think it's imperative that I and others keep engaging in The vast majority of these instances, you know, I've drawn the line at, you say, sharing a platform with those who've been ⁓ imprisoned for terrorist offenses. But for the most part, especially when one has the law, the facts, and frankly right on one side, I think it's imperative to continue to engage.

speaker-1: Yeah, I mean, I was about to mention my next question. You've testified at the UN Human Rights Council and they have cut you off mid-speech. what does that say that ⁓ the answer to this, instead of fighting with facts, they're fighting with silencing you?

speaker-0: Hmm. Well, I can't claim the sort of accolades that the great Hillel Neuer has of being interrupted quite in that same way. But it's right that I've been ⁓ reprimanded and criticized. think it was my tone and choice of language from recollection some time ago. And I thought that was remarkable because again, if you listen to my speech, it is deeply critical of the council and of... ⁓ what I'm often speaking about, is the weaponization of international law and it being used for this process of lawfare, not just against Israel, I would hasten to add, but unfortunately Israel seems to be the primary target here, that there didn't seem to be anything particularly problematic in the way that I was expressing that, in particular because this was expressed out of concern for what the council and other related organizations were doing. to international law, to its credibility, to the international rule of law. So, I don't know, again, my response to that theatrical display ⁓ is to say, I think it speaks volumes for how ridiculous this organization has become. And I think in every one of these instances, be it interviews or be it parliamentary committees, where in one instance the chair got extremely cross and started wagging her finger at me. and interrupting me or be it at the United Nations in every one of these instances, I think the vast majority of those watching know exactly what's going on and it highlights the really deep-seated problems that exist. And that simply wouldn't be the case if I refused to turn up.

speaker-1: ⁓ Do people tell you that in person after these moments ⁓ on the floor of the Human Rights Council? Because I know Hillel Neuer when he was on the show, he said that people did come up to him but came up to him privately. it struck me that if you're going to say it privately, why not say it publicly?

speaker-0: Well, I think there are many reasons that people would refrain from saying it publicly and that is definitely something that we have to seek to change the You know the social cost associated with sticking your head up above the parapet, but certainly privately every single day ⁓ Hundreds if not thousands of messages of emails that I have to always apologize I find it impossible to keep on top of and I'm not able to respond ⁓ but that and also, you know and exchanges where people reference ⁓ arguments that I have sought to put into the public domain that they'd never heard before and change their perspective on everything, know, to individual employees of certain international organizations who will remain nameless, who've written to say thank you, thank you for holding these organizations to account. I can't say anything because my career is on the line. And so in that respect, again, you know, every encouragement and every incentive to keep going. And I do think that this Overton window, right, that seems to have been shifting so dramatically that the only way to address that is by sticking that stake in the ground and by making the case and doing that as forcefully as possible in every possible ⁓ medium and taking every opportunity. because otherwise there is a vacuum and I for one am not going to continue to permit that vacuum of proper analysis and of the law and of the facts and an explanation of what real international law is as it applies to Israel and other Western liberal democracies. I'm not prepared to let that vacuum persist.

speaker-1: Let's get into the specifics of what you do and how you're involved with this. The UK Lawyers for Israel. In one sentence, what does it actually do?

speaker-0: Well, UK LFI was set up as a voluntary association of lawyers to ⁓ work for the proper application of international law to Israel, the proper application of domestic law, combating anti-Semitism, providing support to victims ⁓ of anti-Semitism. And ⁓ its operations are really incredibly expansive across schools and universities and local government and international organisations, ⁓ tribunals and courts. every respect where the law is relevant, either to what allegations are being put forward or to the protections that need to be ⁓ enforced and applied, the lawyers of UK Lawyers for Israel are ready, willing and able to assist. And in parallel with that, I'm very privileged ⁓ now to be also at the helm of ⁓ an entity called the Centre for International Rule of Law. which sees a very, very real danger of the weaponization of international law against Western civilization. And so the focus there is across the academy, across ⁓ international ⁓ legal practice, across the way that international law is deployed by politicians, seeking to educate about what real international law is, and as I say, push back against that weaponization of international law against ⁓ Western civilizations are the way it is being ⁓ manipulated, abused, in order to be deployed against free countries in the world by people who, quite frankly, seek to take our way of life away from us.

speaker-1: I really do want to get into that weaponization of international law against the West as we get into this. ⁓ You've briefed parliaments across Europe, the UN, the Security Council. ⁓ What do those briefings actually look like? Who's in the room?

speaker-0: So often a mixture of politicians. I was most recently in Canada and spoke to a variety of politicians from different parties who had been invited and attended the briefing. Occasionally organizations that are local in countries I'm visiting will set up specific meetings with departments, for example, the foreign affairs or trade departments of various countries and parliamentary committees themselves. So in the United Kingdom, I've spoken to both or provided evidence to both the Business and Trade Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee. And it really is wherever I feel that I can be helpful and where those invitations are coming from to seek to educate on what real international law is. So I'm not a politician and I certainly don't speak to the politics of decisions that countries are taking, but so often ⁓ they ⁓ will, politicians or officials or civil servants, will characterise the approach that they are taking, you know, with respect to Israel or any other state in international legal terms, which won't be accurate or won't be what's prescribed by the international legal framework. So providing input and answering questions on these contentious issues ⁓ as and when I can is something that, you know, I'm always very happy and open to do. And again, I see that as part of that continuing duty to uphold the rule of law. Public education is very important, but educating the decision makers is arguably also hugely significant.

speaker-1: Let's get into the legal charges. Of all of them that are levied against Israel, apartheid, occupation, genocide, which do you think has done the most damage? Where is the front that you're most worried about in this? Is there one?

speaker-0: That's such an interesting question and I just don't know that I would be able to pick one because they're all part of that same phenomenon. And it's one that certainly involves this concept of projection. And I see this across all of the legal terminology that is used to certainly to target Israel in this respect. And so that is, know, occupation. Well, actually there was an occupation, the Ottoman occupation, the British occupation under the mandate. prior to the establishment of the State of Israel. And that concept of occupation, which is a territory being held by another sovereign, is certainly not applicable to Israel post 1948, not under the framework of occupation in international law. Apartheid, well, I can show you where the real apartheid is. It does exist in this territory. It exists in the West Bank in Judea and Samaria. And if you or those watching have traveled in that territory, they will probably have seen big red signs around area A, which is entirely controlled by the Palestinian Authority, civilly and militarily. And those signs warn Israeli citizens that it is an offense to enter that territory. Now, they don't really mean Israeli citizens, they mean Jews, because Israeli Arabs don't have a problem going in and back out. But Jews do, and we saw the horrendous evidence of what would befall those that, in respect to two reservists, I believe it was in year 2000, who mistakenly found themselves in Ramallah, had taken a wrong turn, went to a local police station, and were promptly lynched by an obeying mob with extremely gruesome consequences. So there is the apartheid. The fact that areas that are controlled by the Palestinian Authority after the international agreement of the Oslo Accords, they have been ethnically cleansed of their Jews and they remain, Judenrein. So apartheid is part of that projection. You also mentioned genocide, but before we get to that, we've got, of course, this recurring allegation of ethnic cleansing. know, again, those areas that I just described in Judea and Samaria have been ethnically cleansed of their Jews. Jordan ethnically cleansed East Jerusalem and the entirety of the West Bank when it occupied it. between 1949 and 1967. So there has been real ethnic cleansing, not to speak of the Jews from the Arab world who were ethnically cleansed from across the Middle East. And then, you know, ultimately we get to this abhorrent charge, ⁓ canard of genocide. And that is what has been gaining most traction. And part of the reason that it is so objectionable even to be discussing this. is because the very discussion around the word genocide in the context of how it is now being deployed as this weapon against the Jewish state seems to legitimize it, seems to keep the credence and credibility. And that's exactly what those who started to deploy this allegation were seeking to achieve. Now this deployment of this allegation genocide is not new. More recently, I've seen reports of it in fact being part and parcel of the Soviet propaganda against Zionism decades ago, right? But on a personal level, I also remember participating in a debate on the radio in the UK in studio ⁓ about 2014. So it was Tsuketan. And my opponent was using that charge then. This is not new. So then one has to question why has this so clearly false allegation been gaining traction. And a big part of that, undeniably, is the fact that South Africa brought this allegation against Israel at the ICJ. And we've had, you know, wall-to-wall coverage, most of it entirely false, unfortunately, of those proceedings. And when I say that, I'm referring to the provisional measures orders that the court has issued, which have been almost universally misrepresented. as though they found Israel plausibly guilty of genocide or they found that there was a plausible risk of genocide and none of that was true. What the court in fact did and I appreciate it might sound technical but we're here, we're having this conversation, I it's important.

speaker-1: was one of my questions, absolutely please. What I think we really need to describe. No, please, go for it.

speaker-0: Apologies for jumping So in the context of the provisional measures assessment, the court isn't taking into account any of the evidence, any of the facts. ⁓ And what the court determined was whether the case that South Africa was bringing, so the case that it was alleging, whether that was capable of falling under the determination of the court, so whether it was a case that fell under the Genocide Convention. Now that might sound ⁓ extremely basic, almost bizarrely so, ⁓ but ultimately it's that very very low threshold test of is the case that South Africa is alleging one that makes legal sense, one that falls under the parameters of the convention. And because South Africa was alleging ⁓ the crime of genocide, it won't surprise you to learn that the court found that an allegation of the crime of genocide fell under the genocide convention and therefore

speaker-1: evidentiary burden there, right? This is just does... Can you bring this case, basically?

speaker-0: Exactly. What were the rights that the South Africans were purporting to ⁓ advance on behalf of the Palestinians? And was that protection from genocide? And therefore, as it was, it fell under the convention. Now, it's bizarre because if you read the Provisional Measures Order, the court makes this explicitly clear. First of all, it's part and parcel of the usual Provisional Measures Procedure, but even if you are unfamiliar with that as a lawyer or as a judge or as a commentator on these issues, read the order, it is there in black and white, which is why I've always found it baffling. I mean, there was a letter very early on to the prime minister here in the United Kingdom, which was signed by hundreds of lawyers and former judges, including two former judges of the Supreme Court in the United Kingdom, that made this ridiculous claim that the court had found that there was a plausible risk of genocide. ⁓ And of course, Joan Donoghue, the former judge former president in fact of the Supreme Court who wrote that order ultimately felt the need to come out on an interview and on hard talk on the BBC and Unprecedentedly, you know correct the record and saying no. No, no what the court was considering was plausible rights and this what it means Even then, you know, we haven't heard a retraction from ⁓ the lawyers and the former judges that put forward this ridiculous position which is unfortunate and Sometimes we still hear media referring to plausible genocide as found by the ICJ. So the facts, the law on this is really a side point to the optics. And ⁓ I was on SABC, the South African version of the BBC, just after that first provisional measures order was issued. And my counterpart said something along the lines of, know, isn't it marvelous? Now we can finally use Isabelan genocide in the same sentence and nobody can tell us otherwise. And that's what it was about. you know, changing the applicable terminology, changing the acceptable use of this term. And it certainly has been remarkably successful in that respect, this lawfare process in changing the discussion, the terminology, and what is acceptable to allege against the only Jewish state. And one of the reasons that is so pernicious, I mentioned this projection, it exists here, of course, with genocide too, that Jews are consistently accused of committing the crimes, the very crimes that were committed against them. And I don't just mean the genocide against Jews in the Holocaust, the Jewish experience in the Holocaust that gave rise to this term. It was coined by Raphael Emkin to provide this legal terminology to the Jewish experience. I also mean those acts of genocide that were carried out on the 7th of October. And in the last few days, we've seen this recent report compiled on the sexual violence that was meted out systematically and in a premeditated fashion against men, women and children. on the 7th of October, that is part and parcel of the targeting of Jews because they are Jews with this intention to target them for rape, slaughter, humiliation, mutilation. And that is clear from all of the evidence that has come out from the 7th of October. So again, we see this projection and this accusation that Jews are guilty of committing the crimes that were in fact committed against them. That is, a start to the reason that this allegation is so abhorrent, but of course a big, big facet of this is the reality. know, what Israel has been doing on the ground in Gaza, where it has unprecedentedly been taking more measures than any army in history to prevent civilian casualties, to protect civilians in armed conflict, to protect them often from Hamas fire and Hamas torture. and prevent them from forcibly being kept in areas where Hamas wants them to be kept. So in every respect, ⁓ it's abhorrent, it's objectionable, but it has gained such traction now that I think more and more people are finding it harder to push back on it. And I think it's all the more reason we need to provide people with that ammunition, the facts, the reality, the law, and also the confidence. to bring out these horrific falsehoods.

speaker-1: It's astounding. think was Kareem Khan was on Mehdi Hassan. ⁓ mean, just the degree to which this has infected everyone to like it is now a point of fact in the media sphere. Kareem Khan is pushing back about what plausible means and Mehdi Hassan is saying, well, no, but there is a genocide. ⁓ It's astounding.

speaker-0: What was really interesting about that interview, and it was almost laughable, I'm sorry, if it wasn't so serious, it would be. Kareem Khan suggested that they simply didn't have the evidence to properly consider genocide as a charge at the ICC. And in the same breath was suggesting that the application for arrest warrants that he did put forward to the ICC judges was based on evidence, which is the most remarkable thing. I think I've heard in this context because I reviewed that public summary of the application that Kareem Khan presented to the ICC. And together with UK Lawyers for Israel, we submitted to the court an analysis. And I have to caveat this by saying it's so unusual, I think it's unprecedented, that there would be certainly a public summary of an arrest warrant application because arrest warrants are usually applied for in secret so that those that are subject to them are not aware. and they might therefore be picked up if they travel internationally. Not so here. There was this public summary, there was a press release, there was an interview on Christian Ammpour. I mean, there couldn't have been a more public trumpeting of this application that was being advanced. And I think that's very telling, and perhaps we'll come back to that as to the motivations behind the court conducting itself so outwith its role, its jurisdiction, and the law that applies. But when you actually look at the application that was advanced, every phrase, of every sentence of that document was false. And we wrote to the court outlining exactly how and why. And this was on the basis of publicly available material, real evidence, evidence that was compiled, including evidence that was compiled by COGAT, the unit of the Israeli Defense Forces that is responsible for provision to civilians in times of armed conflict. They have chronicled throughout the war the volume of aid that was being facilitated into the Gaza Strip. And that's important because the charge that Kareem Khan went with to base these arrest warrants on was deliberate starvation. And the facts that are Googleable indicate the complete opposite and what Israel was doing to provide for the civilian community in the Gaza Strip, despite Hamas's best efforts to divert aid and to terrorize the population of the Gaza Strip in the same way that it had been terrorizing in similar ways. to the ways that it sought to terrorise Israeli civilians. And then on the back of all of this, ⁓ Kareem Khan's response to the court was to tell it to ignore any submissions on accuracy that did not come from him, which is extraordinary given the requirements on him as prosecutor and for that matter as a barrister, to put forward any exculpatory or contradictory evidence in what is an ex parte application, an application that is made in the absence of the defendants. you have to put as a prosecutor, we say, your defense hat on and make whatever arguments you would expect a defendant in those situations to make. You this is all of the rule books being thrown out of the window, I'm afraid. So with that context and that history, I think that interview with Mehdi Hazan takes on, you know, a rather different quality. I wasn't as encouraged. by the prosecutors' newfound ⁓ appreciation, supposedly, of evidence given that track record, or indeed, of very basic principles of criminal law. Let's not forget that in October 2023, Kareem Khan went to the Rafah crossing, to the border between Egypt and Gaza. He couldn't get into Gaza, ⁓ but he saw, in fact, what was happening on that border when the Egyptians were still entirely controlling. the entry and exit point ⁓ to Gaza from that ⁓ part of the border that it shares with Egypt. And then he traveled to Cairo and he gave a press conference. And in the context of discussing what it was that the ICC would be doing, he said some very interesting things. First he said that the ICC would be investigating the alleged crimes of Hamas. And then he said that Israel would have to prove that it was complying with international humanitarian law in Gaza. Now, in your first week, of a law course, a criminal law course, any student will be taught the burden and standard of proof. The burden of proof is on the prosecution and it is to prove a case, ⁓ different jurisdictions use different terminology, but essentially so that, you know, a jury can be sure, or what used to be called beyond reasonable doubt. That is what's called the burden and standard of proof. And this was, course, entirely inverted with this bizarre suggestion that Israel would have to prove its innocence. And I for one have seen the way that this case has proceeded and can see how that inversion of the most basic principles of criminal justice have been turned on their head, how this has impacted what has happened at the ICC. And as I say, this is not even to speak of the fact that what has happened in relation to Israel is entirely contradictory to the court's jurisdiction. Israel is not a party to the ICC and the Palestinian authority is not a state. So it cannot join the Rome Statute. And it is also in contravention of the court's own rules. Because even if you look past the fact that this is a flagrant violation of the court's own jurisdiction, it is also violation of the court's own rules. ⁓ Importantly, the rule of complementarity, which requires that the court give any state that it is investigating the opportunity to investigate ⁓ and prosecute any credible allegations. So before the court takes on that mantle of prosecuting individuals, the state that is responsible for that territory and those individuals should be permitted, provided with the opportunity to act. And that also was not the case here. So unfortunately, every indication from what I've described is that this is a publicity stunt, importantly, as I indicated, because this is all done in the public. eye in this circus that we have seen. And I remain convinced that this is an attempt by the court to seek to rehabilitate itself. This is a court that has had its reputation trashed. It has failed to live up to the lofty aspirations of its founders. It has been an absolute disgrace. And it has been accused of being racist. It has really had a rough ride. And it just seems to me that it's seeking to rehabilitate itself by going after the leaders of the only Jewish state.

speaker-1: Let's get into the specifics of the Genocide Convention and the legality about it. For those who haven't read it, in condensed form, what does the word genocide require legally to be proven?

speaker-0: So the definition of genocide in Article 2 of the Convention approaches this crime in two separate parts. One is to set out five acts, including the killing of members of the group or creating conditions that make life impossible, that are qualifying under the definition. But the most important aspect of this and what differentiates it from many other crimes is the intention, which is defined as intention to eradicate a group, an ethnic, national, religious or racial group in whole or in part as such. So this is conduct that is targeting a group and it is this is focused on the intention to target a group as such because those individuals are members of that group and that is reflective as I say of the Jewish experience in the Holocaust of Jews being targeted for extermination because they were Jews and after World War Two there is this fascinating debate between ⁓ Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term genocide, and Hirsch Lauterpacht, who ⁓ preferred the use of the term crimes against humanity, which doesn't include that notion of a group being targeted as such because the individuals are members of that group. And so to my mind, genocide has always been reflective of that, you know, additional horror that those that are committing this crime intend for this group to be no more. They intend to end the existence of this group. It doesn't matter whether they're successful at that or not. It is the intention of targeting that group that counts.

speaker-1: There's the only reasonable inference test. Can you explain that? if a country has an identifiable military objective, as Israel does in Gaza, obviously, what does that do to the genocide charge?

speaker-0: Well, this is really important in the context of armed conflict because one of the ⁓ aspects of war, which I appreciate is quite difficult to countenance, to perhaps even get one's head around when we are so removed from the realities of war, but one of the sort of accepted natural consequences, if you will, is that people will die and civilians will die. It's important then to clarify that the laws of armed conflict are all about minimizing civilian casualties as much as possible. They operate on the basis that it is a given that people, including civilians, will die as a consequence of armed conflict, will be killed. And in that respect, the acts of killing members of a group ⁓ are necessarily going to occur. And so the intention is the all-important factor. No one is disputing that innocent Palestinians have been killed in Gaza. That is unfortunately a tragic reality of war. It is the intention aspect that is critical. And in the context of armed conflict, there can be many explanations for strikes that have been committed that result in civilian casualties. The laws of armed conflict, I'll just run through them. briefly because I think it provides some context. There are four key rules, key principles. One is military necessity. So one can only take action that is militarily necessary to advance one's war aims, the goals of an armed conflict. The other is distinction. One has to distinguish between civilians and combatants on the battlefield. You can target combatants, you must not target civilians. One additional rule is the rule of proportionality. which is perhaps the most misrepresented aspect of international lawful stop. And that requires a balancing exercise. So a reasonable military commander was way up the anticipated military advantage of a strike against the civilian, the anticipated civilian or collateral damage. And that is the balancing ⁓ exercise that needs to be conducted. And the final one that's important to mention is the principle of precaution. So one must take reasonable precautions to prevent civilian casualties. And in Israel's case, as I say, it has gone to far greater measures than any other army in history, but those have included warnings, evacuation of civilians, the creation of humanitarian corridors, targeting strikes, questions of munitions, deployment, time of day, the use of intelligence, all of that are about taking precautions that prevent civilian casualties as much as possible. So in that context, this test of the only reasonable inference has become extremely important. And it's so that, especially in the context of armed conflict, one knows how to approach and treat intention. It cannot simply be inferred or implied as so many, know, armchair commentators, lawyers, military experts seem to be suggesting. I mean, I recall that Lord Donald's assumption for the former Supreme Court justice was indicating that he was basing his legal assessment of what was happening in Gaza on the basis of what he was seeing on television. I that just doesn't wash, not least because, unfortunately, as you at Honest Reporting will know, we've just been seeing a stream of Hamas propaganda be parroted by media outlets around the world, but also because you can't possibly tell anything from the effects of these strikes. And it's critical that the law of armed conflict is not an effects-based analysis, it is only an intention-based analysis. And it is the intention that a military commander had when ordering a strike, when targeting a particular area, ⁓ subject to that proportionality analysis, that is what matters. And so the only reasonable inference is critical to make sure that the crime of crimes, genocide, is treated with that appropriate threshold. And there has to be. ⁓ a real indication that this conduct occurred because of that intention to target a group and to target them ultimately for annihilation. That's the purpose of that qualifier that is developed through case law.

speaker-1: I think that's such an important distinction that gets lost so much because people are home watching TikTok and seeing awful things, which are absolutely unquestionably awful that civilians are killed. It is a fact of war. ⁓ If we were to look at the casualty counts in World War II, it's astounding how many French civilians were killed on D-Day. ⁓ So I really like... Can you talk about this misunderstood idea of disproportionality? ⁓ And also to Israel's care in, you touched on that, in terms of conducting this sort of urban warfare and how that compares with other conflicts.

speaker-0: It simply can't compare with other conflicts. And I have this on authority from military commanders that I've gone into Gaza with who've served in other conflicts who have, you know, often directed the policies in their respective armies, six NATO states that they came from. And frankly, their jaws were on the floor as a result of what they were seeing in terms of the rules of engagement and Israel's policies and practices. And also, it's fair to say, the involvement of lawyers in the IDF. in so many of these targeting decisions and in the policies that have been developed. So proportionality, as I mentioned, is that balancing exercise. There is no formula that will give you the answer. It is ⁓ required that the reasonable military commander weigh this up. And so ⁓ ultimately it will in great part depend on what military significance you ascribe to a target ⁓ that will affect that balancing exercise. and grotesque as it might sound, but how much civilian or collateral damage is acceptable in pursuit of that target. But that means that, ⁓ you know, many, many strikes will be called off and have been called off. And we've seen evidence of that ⁓ in situations where ⁓ that proportionality analysis didn't ⁓ come out with the right answer. That's obviously a lot more complex and nuanced than what we consistently hear in media coverage, which, well, there are a couple of variations of this, aren't there? Sometimes you have this suggestion that, you know, any civilian casualty means that action is disproportionate and that's platently ridiculous. Then you have the suggestion that one has to tot up casualty figures on both sides. And, you know, if Hamas has killed five Israelis, then the Israelis can kill five of the Hamas or Palestinians. mean, that is flatly incorrect, but it is also macabre. It is not how international law works, but it also, that sort of analysis simply encourages Hamas to continue driving up the civilian death toll. And we know that it has been doing this and it has been shooting its own civilians also in an attempt to win the propaganda war against Israel. You mentioned that the harrowing images that people are seeing on TikTok. That I think is something that merits comment, that many of those images are in fact false and Honest Reporting does a lot of important work in pointing that out and we've seen that consistently for example and with respect to these starving baby pictures, know, horrendous images that would cause any right-thinking individual to be absolutely horrified at what they're seeing. But the fact that it is being suggested that these children are in that state because of deliberate Israeli starvation is categorically false. And in every one of these instances, when the research has shown that they are in fact very sick children that are being exploited in this fashion by Hamas with significant health conditions or birth defects that have caused their appearance. And when that is even evident from the very photos themselves, when one sees a sibling that is healthy looking and short, or even the mother that has been holding many of these. babies or children, you know, I saw one with a double chin for goodness sakes and I've never met a mother who would eat before her starving child. But of course, you know, the faculties of reason and analysis, they all go out of the window and there's this completely understandable human kind of guttural reaction to seeing images of this sort of distressing nature. So it's important to clarify, you know, that many of those photos would have been false. Many will also be real, but the... consequences ultimately of Hamas violations of international law not ⁓ indicative of any violations of international law by Israel and that's really important to be clear on.

speaker-1: The misrepresented statements. So often people are pulling, know, they're to Netanyahu's Amalek quote and ⁓ Herzog's collective responsibility quote have been taken not only out of context, but what do they actually say in these cases and what does that mean in terms of the genocide charge?

speaker-0: Sure, we actually addressed all of this in detail in submissions to the International Court of Justice in response to what South Africa had put down in its memorials. And I thought it was really instructive that South Africa had misrepresented every single quote ⁓ from a member of the war cabinet. ⁓ And they suggested that these were quotes targeting Palestinians, when in fact in the original ⁓ Hebrew and in the original context, it was clear that they were speaking about Hamas, eradicating Hamas. or the Amulek reference in relation to Hamas and not the Palestinians more broadly. So the fact that the South African legal team had to so manipulate and misrepresent these quotes that they included in their memorials, I think is quite instructive. But in any event, it is not sufficient to demonstrate intention that there may be some members of the parliament or even of the government outside of the war cabinet that also have no input. into the way that the war was being conducted that have been using deeply troubling rhetoric in many of these instances. Of course, I think it's appropriate to recognise that. But that is not reflective of the actions and the conduct that Israel has taken, which is really a matter of public record in the way that it has approached targeting Hamas in this systematic fashion. And think it's really important. I mentioned earlier that this is an effects-based analysis, intention, forgive me, an intention-based analysis, not effects-based analysis that international humanitarian law is predicated on. The South Africans and those other commentators that are making this allegation certainly do not have the information to make any assessment of Israel's compliance with international humanitarian law before we even get to this absurd allegation of genocide. But there are certain countries that have been provided with sensitive intelligence by the Israelis that do go to the intelligence analysis, the decisions on striking, the proportionality analysis. across the duration of the war at various times, they included the UK government and the US government. And at those relevant times, It's very instructive that both the UK and the US were saying that they did not have concerns with Israel's compliance with international humanitarian law on proportionality and targeting. So those countries that have actually been provided with some of the information to make this kind of assessment ⁓ have been clear in what their analysis was. And part of the reason for that is because that the measures Israel takes are ⁓ far greater, frankly. then the British or American armies would be prepared to take in similar circumstances. And that has also been endorsed by those, you know, members of those armed forces that have been on the ground in Gaza and have written about this, including Sir John McCall, who I was in Gaza with in 2024, and who wrote two very powerful pieces when he returned to the UK, talking about, you know, what he's experienced and the rules of engagement that Israel had developed and was deploying that were frankly unheard of amongst Western moral law abiding armies. Now, part of the equation is that other armies have not really been presented with the sorts of challenges that the IDF has faced in Gaza. And John Spencer has written with great clarity and in great detail about this. The tactics that Hamas have deployed throughout this conflict have sought to frustrate Israel's ability to target them by their use of human shields or even human sacrifices and by embedding themselves in civilian infrastructure and by creating this propaganda war to pressure Israel's allies to pressure Israel to cease its lawful self-defense. And in the face of, you know, all of that, what we have seen is this you know, unprecedented action. And so you can misquote political leaders in Israel as much as you like. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating and is in, you know, the statistics. There are lots of fake casualty figures that are floating around. I fully appreciate that. And we have done analysis on the basis of even Hamas fake casualty statistics. Throughout this war and you know, certainly that the back of the envelope analysis Which I see has been endorsed in fact by many other commentators and data scientists and statisticians We're looking at a casualty ratio at times of 1.5 to 1. So that's 1.5 Civilians to every one combatant now, it's varied. It's fluctuated but just taking that as as an example and and this is all caveat it with The fact that this does not give an indication as to whether Israel is complying with international humanitarian law because this is looking at the effects rather than the intention. But I think it's really instructive nonetheless because if you compare it with other armed conflicts, it's incomparable. So the average that the United Nations put out in a report some years ago is that, you know, taking into account armed conflicts around the world in urban areas was a very disturbing nine to one. nine civilians to every one combatant. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the figures that the Americans, the American health authorities put out were five to one and three to one. 1.5 to one, or even if we were to go up, you know, as high as three to one is still, you know, 1.5 to one is unprecedented in the history of this sort of armed conflict. And we're not even dealing with situations that come close to the challenges that Hamas has deliberately posed. to Israel's efforts to keeping civilians in the Gaza Strip safe. And so in that respect, know, these really pathetic attempts to twist problematic rhetoric, ⁓ to buttress this outrageous false claim of genocide, or even more broadly, of war crimes ⁓ in Gaza is deeply, deeply problematic. Certainly. As a matter of the policy of the israeli government and of the policy of the idf in terms of the way that the idf has approached this conflict, ⁓ the ⁓ rules of engagement that I that I indicated earlier But also that the conduct the code of conduct ⁓ and the ethical ⁓ code and the purity of arms that the idf instills In in it soldiers, ⁓ in you the first week of basic training that is focused on protecting life wherever possible and I think the ⁓ effect of that is evident when one looks at these projected casualty ratios, which as I say are frankly unprecedented in a positive way.

speaker-1: In order to support these genocide charges, there have been open efforts to weaken the standard ⁓ from, ⁓ what is it, from Brazil and Chile, ⁓ making it a fluid concept of ⁓ intent. There was a story ⁓ recently in the Skeptic magazine where Daniel Bernstein went through the genocide claims in a pretty solid debunking. He makes the point that this is being specifically engineered not just to target Israel, but also Western nations in general and their ability to fight non-state actors. mean, do you think that's part of the actual endgame?

speaker-0: would 100 % agree with that. And it's reflective of what I said at the start of our conversation, which is that this is not just Israel's problem. If this gains traction, and frankly it shouldn't, because it's not international law, it's not what the law of armed conflict provides for, it is lawfare, it is abusive, it is the weaponization of international law. But if it gains traction, then the logical consequences of it is that no Western... civilization is able to defend itself from terrorism. Any terrorist that seeks to drive up civilian casualties, either its own civilians or those on the other side, is going to make it impossible to target them. And this is not what the laws of armed conflict say. And we've had this similar, you know, extremely troubling approach with respect to the way that the strikes by the US and Israel on Iran have been discussed. This bizarre suggestion that this is unlawful. in international law. I mean, that should be extremely troubling and is not a reflection of what international law ⁓ says, mostly because this is a continuation of an armed conflict, that it's clear that Israel and Iran have certainly been involved in, arguably America also, but in any event, there's no issue with America coming to Israel's assistance as an ally in this respect and assisting it in that vein with this war of self-defense. ⁓ but of course I've seen to the contrary, ⁓ a New York Times journalist, ⁓ actually putting into print that it is unlawful for a stronger state to strike a weaker state. I mean, that, that is, that is the adulteration, ⁓ the level of that, that we are, we're seeing with respect to, ⁓ you know, how international law is, being presented. And, and that strikes me frankly, also as the woke if ization of international law. And the moment you have. these concepts gaining traction, think two things happen. One is, I would absolutely agree with this notion that it might very well become more difficult for Western liberal democracies to defend themselves. But the other, you know, very problematic consequence is that people stop giving international law any credibility. You know, if the strikes by Israel and the US on Iran are in some world, considered to be illegal, what's the point of international law? And that's extremely dangerous because when international law loses credibility and loses its force, then a great deal, I think, of the international rules-based order is at risk.

speaker-1: You've talked about institutional capture, the United Nations, the ICJ, the ICC, amnesty, human rights watch. ⁓ What does that actually mean for ⁓ liberal democracies?

speaker-0: Well, this is a process that has been ongoing, I'd say for decades. And actually the example that you gave of attempts to rewrite the definition of genocide are very, very relevant here. This is an example, you know, in the Amnesty International report alleging genocide, they do this, they seek to rewrite the rules and they advocate for an amendment to how genocide is defined because even they recognise that even on their false facts they can't make the threshold that we discussed earlier. And so in fact in the Amnesty International report they're surprisingly perhaps pretty open and honest about the fact that they are manipulating ⁓ the very definition of genocide in order to try and make it stick here. But what we have seen is that there's a process at work. the NGOs like Amnesty will put these allegations into their reports. It's clear that this is essentially just regurgitated Hamas propaganda. And one of the reasons for that, again, this is clear from the Amnesty International report, their methodology section, they say, we do not have people on the ground in Gaza, we rely on what they call local government authorities. So they take that Hamas propaganda, they stick it into their report and they circulate it. And it gets picked up at the UN Human Rights Council by other NGOs, Human Rights Watch did a more or less identical report on genocide. It gets perhaps quoted also at the General Assembly, at the ICC or the ICJ, and then Amnesty will point and say, see, the ICJ says so. And that cycle of disinformation, ⁓ know, of disinformation laundering even, is complete. And that process has been at play for some time. how is it or why is it that these organizations have been so captured? Well, I think there's a multifaceted approach there and it's a bit of a perfect storm because we can see the academy, the International Legal Academy in particular, being part of that capture. And there is a back and forth from the academy to these NGOs, to international courts and tribunals. And one feeds off of the other. So frankly, when, you know, Mehdi Hassan and others have said to me, well, is Amnesty International wrong then and Human Rights Watch is wrong and the UN is wrong and the ICJ? Yes. The answer, Mehdi and others, is yes. They're all wrong for the same reasons because they're all regurgitating the same false information. And I think once that is understood and that is clear and once the realities can have more of an airing, and that's a real challenge. because you know so much of this has become the received wisdom that you know even when I'm on the BBC and I'm explaining chapter and verse of these things it's preposterous they can't possibly they can't even process it because it's so contrary to you know the the false information that they're being fed by by so-called human rights organizations I don't see them as human rights organizations anymore I'm afraid so many of them have ⁓ totally lost credibility and so far as Human Rights Watch is concerned I mean even their founder has lamented how they have been, you know, my words, hijacked, but essentially become an organization that is obsessively focused with Israel ⁓ and frankly with L'Habline, the Jewish state.

speaker-1: You make these arguments in rooms full of people who have really already made up their minds. You just described that experience on the BBC. Does it ever work? these arguments ever work? Do you ever get through to people? Do you think people have actually changed their mind after they're so indoctrinated?

speaker-0: It varies and it depends and often it's not the anchors that I'm seeking to convince and unfortunately often it's the anchor that might not come out looking great ⁓ if they are sticking to you know the dogma in the face of ⁓ the evidence that I'm seeking to put forward but yeah you've got to pick your battles for sure I mean I was speaking to another BBC journalist ⁓ And I have to say, I felt like I was making progress in the conversation. And we were discussing starvation, and I was talking about quite a few of the reports that we had put out that deal with the false allegations and the inaccuracies in the reports from the IPC, from the famine review committee, that were projecting starvation that never materialized and why that was. And while I was going through the detail, ⁓ he very much seemed to be sort of, you know, with me following perhaps. But at some point, I felt like the penny dropped. And he said to me, but surely you accept that the Israelis are deliberately starving the Palestinian civilians. And when I said no, because of everything that I've been explaining, including, you know, the volume of aid that was being facilitated in, which is evident from the Kogut website, it was as though I had called his mother. woman of questionable virtue. That was the look on his face and the conversation was over. So there are people that are so enslaved to these false narratives that you're never going to be able to convince them. But there are others watching often, not in that particular conversation unfortunately, but certainly when one goes on the news or does interviews or lectures or podcasts or webinars. There are many others that need this information and need to see that exchange and that debate. And I'm now ⁓ enthusiastically pursuing opportunities to come and debate at US universities and engage with members of faculty there in order to reach ⁓ those students that need to be better educated on these issues. And I do think that reasonable people will be alive to the realities here. And I think perhaps there are two messages that have a chance of getting through. To those that really don't have any skin in the game and don't care about Israel, might not care very much about international law, the first message is you have been lied to. You are having the wall pulled over your eyes. And all of this reporting that is coming out of the region, because for one reason or another, those people covering this issue are self-censoring. They are not reporting the facts, the reality, because of a fear of what internationally prescribed terrorist organisations, Hamas and Hezbollah included, will do either to them or their colleagues operating elsewhere in the region. This is not a secret of the way the media operate in the Middle East. So you have been lied to is the first message and I think reasonable people will have some sort of reaction to that. Nobody wants to be taken for a ride. And the other critical message here is if you think this is just about Israel, think again. Because we're coming back full circle now. These people are coming for your way of life. And you better wise up. you better understand what it is that is facing Israel and you, Western civilization, and you better become alive to these manipulations because otherwise, you know, everything that we've been talking about, about the ability of the West to defend itself, about the credibility of international law, that is coming to pass. And I do think that that impacts all of us as individuals very, very problematically.

speaker-1: Natasha, thank you so much for all you do. Thank you for spending this time going through all of this in such detail. Hopefully we will be able to talk again and under better circumstances.

speaker-0: I do hope so. Thank you, Ben. Great to be with you.

speaker-1: Natasha said something early in this conversation that stayed with me. She said, I am a defender of international law, not a defender of Israel, not a defender of Jews, a defender of international law. Because what's being waged in these courtrooms, the genocide libel, the ICC arrest warrants, the Brazil-Chile Belize campaign to redefine intent, that's not international law. That's the weaponization of international law. against the only Jewish state, and against every Western democracy that will one day have to fight a non-state actor. Which means eventually all of us. Natasha Hausdorff is the Legal Director of UK Lawyers for Israel. Links to her work are in the description. If you're not already, subscribe and hit the notification bell so you never miss an episode. And follow Honest Reporting on Instagram, X, TikTok, and Facebook. Subscribe to The Honest Take wherever you get your podcasts, and even better, if you're so inclined, leave us a review. I'm Ben Chertoff, this is The Honest Take, and we'll see you next time.