Natasha Hausdorff is amazing. I hope we see a lot more of her, she knows how to handle biased reporters. I don't know how she stays so calm. I've never seen someone so elegant.
What settlements? Israel was attacked many times before and after any claim of a settlement. The West Bank is misrepresented, it was an area to be Israel’s. In 1947 Israel could not hold off Jordan’s occupation of West Bank or Samaria Judea. Fortunately in 67 after another 4 sides attack by Arabs. Israel won in 6 days, and won back Samaria Judea and the Golan Heights, huge misperception that these areas are settlements. They are Israeli land. It’s time Arab countries stop attacking Israel civilian population centers.
The previous occupation was by the British after the fall of the Ottoman empire. Jordan annexed the West Bank and lost it during the 6 day war. End of story, it's back where it belonged originally.
The Ottomans signed All their lands over to the Allies after WW1. The Allies turned the responsibility of the lands over to the League of Nations. The British were made administrators under the League of Nations. It was not a colony of England!!
@@shainazion4073While it was not a colony of Britain it was handed over to Britain by league of Nations to be reconstituted to the national homeland of jews😂😂
@@bobbyjpg Yes, After the British illegally gave the Arabs 77% of the Mandate of Palestine lands to become transJordan, leaving only 23% to become the future Jewish state!
It is perhaps of interest since the barrister mentions Jordan controlling the territory of east Jerusalem: When Israel conquered this land in 1967, they discovered that ancient Jewish tombstones had been used to line Jordanian military latrines. These Jews were not colonizers and had nothing to do with modern wars or Zionism. Their existence is a clear indication of Jews having been in that area for centuries but also clear antisemitism -- desecration of the burial places of innocent people. If you really think that, Heaven Forbid, Hamas or any Palestinians who want to wipe out Israel will see a distinction between Zionists and Jews who even vocally oppose Israel (like the Neturei Karta dopes) and thereby protect such non/anti-Zionist Jews, you are naive.
the biggest mistake Israel made when it was a young, apologetic and peace seeking country, was not to remove ALL 1.3 million "Palestinians", from its borders after the 67 war. dozens of millions migrated across new borders after the Ottomans fell leaving everything behind. hundreds of thousands of Jews left Arab countries with only the clothes on their back. and now a problem that used to be 1.3 is 5.3
So desperate to justify your internal myth of Judaism being persecuted by everyone, always. Jews were perfectly safe within islamic countries including Iran, and all religions lived alongside each other in Palestine for centuries too. It is zionism which has brought terror to non jews and caused people to be critical of the Occupation. Judaism is accepted. Zionism is poison.
Uti Possiditis Juris is particularly relevant to the West Bank and Jerusalem. In 1948 when Arab armies invaded the newly independent state of Israel, Jordan took over the West Bank and parts of Jerusalem, all of which Israel recaptured in 1967 and the Uti Possiditis Juris established Israel's right to take over under international law. This principle functions to maintain the boundaries of the territory that will be made into a State through a binding Mandate on Israel's Rights to its original boundaries which is also included in this principle.
This is the kind of logical precision that helps us see how inflated accusations often misuse terms. We ALL need to be remind ourselves of the core meanings of words so as to recognise their misuse, either out of (deliberate) ignorance or a political bias. THANKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Everyone should share this Lecture and explanation. It does clear up a lot of ignorant questions that usually come from Journalists who try to push their Own Agenda.
Please review ICC, ICJ , human rights watch , and amnesty international recent report on genocide . It’s amazing to see how Jews through out the history of the world have been champions of humans rights and equality of all but in this case are just not able to appreciate what the whole world is watching and understanding . And how different is that from Natasha Hausdorff explanation . All major humanitarian Organizations including B’ Tselem a Jewish Israel based human rights organization can’t be untruthful or biased at one time? On one issue ? Can they all be lying or ignorant or anti semitic ?
Nothing clear. All is trying to confuse and convince of the legitimacy of land grabbing when actually is in fact stealing palestinians of their territory.
She puts across the FACTS in a very logical way. For someone .ike myself (a man from the street) this comes across with clarity and in a professional manner. I am amazed in the bias of certain msm that although using the International Law as a bettering ram against certain states (including Israel) are so up themselves that even a 5 minute search (especially on the internet) debunked their social biases when presented with FACTS such as this. One must remember..we might not like certain things or actions or even Israel in this case..but they ARE following International Law..in fact with the IDF..they are going above and below to actually save lives by (losing) the military and tactical initiative by TELLING people BEFOREHAND..that they ARE going to demolish/attack
OF COURSE THE SETTLEMENTS IN THE WEST BANK ARE ILLEGAL. No country has the right to take land militarily. No country has a right to expel people for having the wrong religion. No country has a right to establish new urbanizations in places that are not part of their recognized territory. No country has the right to demolish houses of people that have lived there for generations. No country has the right to claim rights on anything that happened over 3000 years ago. Can you imagine the chaos if everyone acted like Israel?
I listened to Ms Hausdorff talk, what a strong determined young woman. Ms Hausdorff is quoting historical matters of international law. Why is Israel having and issue with the UN. Is the UN ignoring these laws?
The UN is made up of 193 countries. Many are dictatorships and human rights abusers, they all vote and voice opinions according to interests and never with regard to justice. To expect the UN to "behave" with honesty, morality or justice is naive in the extreme.
She is incredible.......how she can justify the genocide of the Palestinian people on their ancestral lands and all the satanic evil of the illegal occupation whilst pretending to be someone who respects the common decency contained within the Law.
Thank you. I note well there's many war crime allegations against Israel but none against Hamas. Since when were rape, kidnap and torture not a war crime? Was not Putin named a war criminal for kidnap and torture?
OF COURSE THE SETTLEMENTS IN THE WEST BANK ARE ILLEGAL. No country has the right to take land militarily. No country has a right to expel people for having the wrong religion. No country has a right to establish new urbanizations in places that are not part of their recognized territory. No country has the right to demolish houses of people that have lived there for generations. No country has the right to claim rights on anything that happened over 3000 years ago. Can you imagine the chaos if everyone acted like Israel?
@lbs7774 LMAO, when you make your own laws, you can call anything you want illegal. There is nothing illegal about Israeli settlements. Besides the fact that in many cases countries have the absolute right to take land militarily, for instance when countries are being attacked from that land, Israel did not *take* that land, it simply removed the illegal occupier, Jordan. Israel has every right to allow Jews to live where they wish, especially in territories which are its sovereign land under international law. Every country in the world demolishes illegally built houses or other buildings. 3000 years of rights are indeed a very good "bonus" However, Israel does not rely on old rights, it has every right, legal, moral, logical and humanitarian right to self-determination. We don't need to imagine the chaos that arises when people like you do not respect international law. We can see it happening in front of our eyes. Not only on October 7th but across much of the Middle East, for many years. This lady explained on many occasions that she volunteers to tell the truth, your assertion that she is being paid by Israel is another indication that you are unable to recognize the truth even when it hits you in the face.
No mindless slogans and aggression ; erudite explanation of the actual law . Of course many people prefer mindless slogans , baseless claims and wallowing in victimhood .
Love this video. The discussion is very fascinating. Natasha presented the material in a systematic way. Overall it was very informative. I feel like I was in a mini law class but enjoyed it very much...
Very interesting presentation and very clarifying . Thanks for this excellent explanation of International Laws and the status of the territories of Israel .
OF COURSE THE SETTLEMENTS IN THE WEST BANK ARE ILLEGAL. No country has the right to take land militarily. No country has a right to expel people for having the wrong religion. No country has a right to establish new urbanizations in places that are not part of their recognized territory. No country has the right to demolish houses of people that have lived there for generations. No country has the right to claim rights on anything that happened over 3000 years ago. Can you imagine the chaos if everyone acted like Israel?
OF COURSE THE SETTLEMENTS IN THE WEST BANK ARE ILLEGAL. No country has the right to take land militarily. No country has a right to expel people for having the wrong religion. No country has a right to establish new urbanizations in places that are not part of their recognized territory. No country has the right to demolish houses of people that have lived there for generations. No country has the right to claim rights on anything that happened over 3000 years ago. Can you imagine the chaos if everyone acted like Israel?
Is there an international law reference to the so called ‘Palestinians’ refugees and their residing in camps in Israel? And their confinement of them to camps out side of Israel in other countries who don’t integrate them into their respective counties, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and perhaps now Egypt. Thank you, for a brilliant presentation
There are NO refugees within the State of Israel. All arabs who remained since 1948 became full citizens. Only their surrounding "brother" states keeps them in camps and don't allow them to become citizens.
Palastinians refugees in camps in Israel? What? First time hearing this. Believe me there are no concentration camps inside of Israel. Secondly they are not refugees, most if not all palastinians weren't born in the boarders of Israel 1948. Making them legally not refugees they were born in another land, they should be integrated to the country they were born in. If you build refugee camps for 75 years, is it really refugge camp or is it just a reason for worlds attention
@@JohnPean-xy2ou -correct sir, they are attempting to denigrate israel on world stage to make their move to steal more ancient jewish land when they already own 99% of the lands around israel,predictable anti-jewish hatred festering for centuries
Well probably no more question cause the audience is dumb founded at the legal aspect of international that even the ICJ failed to see or do not want to hear or see. With all those high end lawyers commanding top dollars, one is wondering if they are worth their pay or salary. This is not an excuse to differ with Natashas legal view which is buttress by examples. These organization willingly and wild interpretation of the law is abhorring and condemnable. Their top officials should resign starting from the UN head for incitement of violence if I may say.Natasha has long way to go and would be a great asset to any organization!
OF COURSE THE SETTLEMENTS IN THE WEST BANK ARE ILLEGAL. No country has the right to take land militarily. No country has a right to expel people for having the wrong religion. No country has a right to establish new urbanizations in places that are not part of their recognized territory. No country has the right to demolish houses of people that have lived there for generations. No country has the right to claim rights on anything that happened over 3000 years ago. Can you imagine the chaos if everyone acted like Israel?
What an amazing depth of analysis from the most qualified expert! Thanks for explaining! All, please share this video with the world. I've forwarded to Twitter. Thank you, Natasha Hausdorff!
So , all this lecture is informing me of is the fact that that there is an organisation named UK lawyers for Israel. One can always use the law to back up an argument. International law does not apply to the United States of America or Israel. While there may be certain laws that may apply in certain situations it is always extremely difficult to extend the laws to certain countries that do not recognise same.
I have watched your three videos over the last day and must congratulate you on an excellent and objective summary. In trying to understand the issue there is one point I am unclear on. As I understand it the declaration of independence in 1948 was not accompanied by a map. Is this correct? If so, was it Israel’s intention to only include the land allocated to it as part of the proposed partition? If so, what is the status of the remaining land? There is an English international lawyer named Natasha Hausdorf who makes out a very cogent case that Israel has a rightful claim under international law to all of the land from the British Mandate left over from the creation of Jordan ie including the West Bank and Gaza. th-cam.com/video/LCLPB2ibGNQ/w-d-xo.html By her arguments, the West Bank settlements cannot be illegal and Israel cannot have annexed any land because it is not owned by any other sovereign state. Her argument is weakened - but not entirely disproved - by Israel’s actions in handing Gaza over in 2005 and agreeing the three zones or areas in the West Bank. It can be argued that the Palestinians, by rejecting the original proposals in the 1940s together with subsequent ones, have actually undermined their claim to the West Bank but perhaps that is more an academic than a practical point. On a second point, in the second video in this series, you mentioned that Egypt refused to take over responsibility for Gaza as part of the Camp David discussions. Does anyone have a source for this? I saw it mentioned elsewhere but cannot find a direct source. Thanks again for the excellent videos.
Mike, in several talks, she said that Israel can (like other countries can about their borders) negotiate agreements over its land. And Israel did so with the Arabs. Unfortunately, on October 7th we learnt the folly of that. As for the Egyptians refusing to take Gaza back, I am sure that you will be able to find a reference for it if you look at the Kemp-David negotiations. But it is clear even today that Egypt does not want anything to do with the Palestinians.
@@יוסידניאלי-ת1נ Thanks for your comment. Rather embarassingly, I meant my comment for Dr Henry Abramson rather than this channel! I thought TH-cam had rejected it! He has prepared 3 excellent half hour talks giving the background to the dispute. You are correct that she has mentioned the ability of a state to change its boundaries by agreement. I presume you are in Israel. If so, please accept my best wishes at this very difficult time. Natasha is becoming quite a TV star here in the uk. Our national broadcaster, the BBC, has come in for some criticism for biased reporting favouring the Palestinian side. If you have the time and the inclination you may want to have a look at Natasha's interview with Katya Adler where Natasha puts her right on a few points. th-cam.com/video/LdW6ISElci4/w-d-xo.html
I think you have to watch a video again, the partition plan included a proposal of two states on the territory map of which you saw, but it looks like if the other side didn't claim this part, the land in its entirety belongs to Israel that agreed on this proposal and formed a state. I personally always thought Israel made a mistake to not declare its sovereignty over the west bank and gaza after the 1967 war. After listening to Natasha and doing a bit of reading on the subject it is clear. As far as Palestinians, they never wanted a state, it's an Islamic thing. Muslims wanted the whole land and no Jews
Fair enough. It's all about law which requires understanding concepts such as sovereignty and the difference between international and domestic law. It's worth persevering though, because law is at the heart of the conflict.
Does the Sykes-picot Anglo French agreement 1916 concerning borders of Lebanon, Palestine Syria have any bearing on current International Law ? Ditto for the famous post first world war 1920 San Remo Conference which settled the British Mandate's territory ?
Are you saying that peoples(Jews Muslim and Christiens) who have been living there for hundreds even thousands of years does not have any right to their land.?
Many people living in Israel have and hold every right to their land. Of all races and faiths. Some individuals lost their claims in a war of annihilation that was forced on Israel, BTW, a war that is still going on. It is very sad for these people, and they should have a claim against the states that launched the war in an attempt to destroy Israel. I wish them luck. Israel, for its share, has already in the 50s absorbed more than 800,000 Jewish refugees who had to escape the same Arab countries that attacked Israel. Like the Arabs who lost properties due to Arab aggression, the Jews also were not yet compensated.
uti possidetis juris (UPJ) is a principle of customary international law that serves to preserve the boundaries of colonies emerging as States. Originally applied to establish the boundaries of decolonized territories in Latin America, UPJ has become a rule of wider application, notably in Africa.
@@SvenSteffenArndt correct. But even if there were, it is not possible to split the land. Though Israel could enter into agreements on its terms. But of course as you said, no other state has been declared.
I am not an expert, but I believe if the Arab residents of Mandatory Palestine had also declared their independence on areas offered to them, then they would have more legal standing in regard to "occupation". But because they decided not to declare independence, the borders default to Israel as the only country claiming independence within those borders.
Of course it does. Period. No other country has the right to do what Israel does to the original people from the land they want to expel them from. The world is watching how Israel is a terrorist state. Period.
And YES OF COURSE THE SETTLEMENTS IN THE WEST BANK ARE ILLEGAL. No country has the right to take land militarily. No country has a right to expel people for having the wrong religion. No country has a right to establish new urbanizations in places that are not part of their recognized territory. No country has the right to demolish houses of people that have lived there for generations. No country has the right to claim rights on anything that happened over 3000 years ago. Can you imagine the chaos if everyone acted like Israel?
@@teeenn4593 " the Palestinian portions didn’t as it were cease to exist". An absolute nonsense, "the Palestinian portion" never existed. History revisionists like you are a big part of the problem.
@teeenn4593 181 was an irrelevant recommendation. If it had been accepted it could have created an Arab territory, as it was not, it remains a meaningless resolution. BTW, it is important to note that 181 never mentioned Palestinians, just Arabs. Also, Arabs already have 21 states and 1 autonomy, and 1 of these 21 States was carved out from the geographical area that was called Palestine (the Land of Israel). 75% of it was given to the Jordanian Arabs.
My understanding of what Natasha has said is that, since the partition (which was designed to create two states) was rejected by the Arabs, only one state actually came into being and thus inherited the territory of the former mandate. Jordan became an occupier of the West Bank and East Jerusalem and Egypt the occupier of Gaza. If the Arabs had accepted the partition plan at the time of the expiry of the mandate then two states would have come into being, and in the borders designated by the proposed partition plan. Basically, they gambled that the Jews would be wiped out by the invading Arab armies and they would have the entire country to themselves. It didn't happen, and they lost everything as a result. Sad, but true. Actions have consequences.
It´s not very interesting if the correct legal word for the presence of Israel on the Westbank since 1967 is `occupation` or not. It´s much more interesting who the people were that lived there in 1967 and live there now, and how Israel is treating these inhabitants. And that does not make a nice picture for Israel, I´m afraid.
Stupidity of Palestiniannot to declare the establishment of their State and territory. They forfeit all their claims when they reject the partition and go to war.
@@gunsalves no she had the map as the entire Palestine region including the WB and Gaza. They weren’t part of the British/UN plan. That plan called for two states. So when Israel declared independence, it shouldn’t have covered all of the territory.
@@gunsalves Yes she explained that part but my question isn’t about the claiming, it’s about the borders. Cause she had a map of the entire Palestine Mandate but it was to be divided into two states, not a single territory, so there was supposed to be another state in the land. So a claim by one party can’t be valid over the land designated for another party.
@@teeenn4593 You are wrong again. Egypt is a signatory to a Pan-African agreement that requires it to take refugees in wartime and as a result of natural disasters. Egypt is a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol, as well as to the 1969 OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa. There are approximately 40,000 registered people of concern to UNHCR in the country, from 38 different nationalities. At the end of 2009, 58 per cent were Sudanese, 17 per cent Iraqis and 17 per cent Somalis. There was also a growing number of Eritreans and Ethiopians. In the absence of a national asylum system, all activities pertaining to registration, documentation and refugee status determination (RSD), as well as the provision of assistance and the search for durable solutions, are carried out by UNHCR under a framework agreement signed with the Government in 1954. Egypt is both a refugee-receiving and a transit country, often for irregular movements of people, in particular through the northern Sinai. Addressing the challenges posed by these movements in a manner that is mindful of Egypt’s legitimate security concerns, while respecting the principle of non- remains a priority for UNHCR.
Natasha, I sincerely wonder what would be the boundaries of the states had two entities declared statehood and emerged. I guess it would have been impossible for both Israel and Palestine to have declared statehood independence at the same time--one would have preceded the other. So the first to declare statehood gets it all under Uti Possidetis Juris? Okay, I guess for two or more states to emerge from a territory would require agreements that would determine boundaries.
Prior of the creation of the state of Israel..there is not a place known as Palestine?There are no Palestinian peoples be them being Muslim,Jews or Christien?
Individual people were living in the geographical area called Palestine, the Land of Israel. (albeit very few in numbers). They still live in Israel, Jews, Arabs Christians... the only democracy in the Middle East. There was only one nation (a People) living there and that was the Jewish nation. You must be very careful not to conflate, individuals with nations, or private land with state land. People who try to make a case for the Palestinians in Israel often pretend that the different terms mean the same thing. They lie, and they lie because if they use the right terminology they will not have a case to make.
@@AdelinaMuller Israel is not a democracy. Calling Israel a democracy is an insult to people's intelligence. So either you are not intelligent or you just lie. Israel can't call itself a democracy because it operates a brutal military regime in the Palestinian territories (i.e. West Bank and Gaza) and suppresses the rights of the majority of the population of those territories who identify as Palestinians. Also Israel's claim to the land is of questionable value... Just because the supposed ancestors of Israeli Jews controlled the land 3,000 years ago this doesn't give a "divine" right to their alleged descendants to kick other people from their homes... Anyone who knows history knows that all those Jews who went to Palestine in the 20th century came from Europe or North Africa or some Middle Eastern country... and frankly the British colonialists who indeed helped the Jews against the Arabs in order to create Israel didn't do that because they thought that Jews had more historical rights to the land than Arabs but they did it because they thought that it's better for both Jews and non-Jews in Europe if Jews had their own state in Palestine... It was just a convenient solution for them and it had nothing to do with historical and religious claims to the land... But even the early zionists in early 20th century had alternative options for a Jewish state in other areas of the world if they weren't able to create a Jewish state in Palestine.
Israel is actually YASHAR ALAH, meaning Prince of God in reference to Jacob or Yakub. Jerusalem was formerly Urusalim - Urushalim - Urushalem, god of the dusk from the same root S L M - Shalom cognate with the Arabic Salam. He was a Canaanite god. The Palestinians, according to the latest DNA along with the Jews are descendants of the Canaanites. "Archeologic and genetic data support tat both Jews and Palestinians came from the ancient Canaanites, who extensively mixed with Egyptians, Mesopotamian and Anatolian people in ancient times". National Institutes of Health (gov). "DNA from the Bible's Canaanites lives on in modern Arabs and Jews who have lived in the region". National Geographic. "Palestinians are Canaanites they are not originally from the Arabian Peninsula. This genetic analysis proves that Palestinians are mostly Canaanites; they have higher Canaanite DNA than the Jews. So what makes you native and not them. They were just Arabized". AskMiddleEast
Natasha Hausdorff is amazing. I hope we see a lot more of her, she knows how to handle biased reporters. I don't know how she stays so calm. I've never seen someone so elegant.
What settlements? Israel was attacked many times before and after any claim of a settlement. The West Bank is misrepresented, it was an area to be Israel’s. In 1947 Israel could not hold off Jordan’s occupation of West Bank or Samaria Judea. Fortunately in 67 after another 4 sides attack by Arabs. Israel won in 6 days, and won back Samaria Judea and the Golan Heights, huge misperception that these areas are settlements. They are Israeli land. It’s time Arab countries stop attacking Israel civilian population centers.
These are what I've been saying all along. People need to be informed.
Fine - but will not impact the views of Muslims whose emotional/religious response to the very existence of Israel totally outweighs logical arguments
The previous occupation was by the British after the fall of the Ottoman empire. Jordan annexed the West Bank and lost it during the 6 day war. End of story, it's back where it belonged originally.
So simple.
The Ottomans signed All their lands over to the Allies after WW1. The Allies turned the responsibility of the lands over to the League of Nations. The British were made administrators under the League of Nations. It was not a colony of England!!
@@shainazion4073Exactly, not a colony and Britain did a lot of good- ended slavery of african peoples.
@@shainazion4073While it was not a colony of Britain it was handed over to Britain by league of Nations to be reconstituted to the national homeland of jews😂😂
@@bobbyjpg Yes, After the British illegally gave the Arabs 77% of the Mandate of Palestine lands to become transJordan, leaving only 23% to become the future Jewish state!
It is perhaps of interest since the barrister mentions Jordan controlling the territory of east Jerusalem: When Israel conquered this land in 1967, they discovered that ancient Jewish tombstones had been used to line Jordanian military latrines. These Jews were not colonizers and had nothing to do with modern wars or Zionism. Their existence is a clear indication of Jews having been in that area for centuries but also clear antisemitism -- desecration of the burial places of innocent people. If you really think that, Heaven Forbid, Hamas or any Palestinians who want to wipe out Israel will see a distinction between Zionists and Jews who even vocally oppose Israel (like the Neturei Karta dopes) and thereby protect such non/anti-Zionist Jews, you are naive.
the biggest mistake Israel made when it was a young, apologetic and peace seeking country, was not to remove ALL 1.3 million "Palestinians", from its borders after the 67 war.
dozens of millions migrated across new borders after the Ottomans fell leaving everything behind.
hundreds of thousands of Jews left Arab countries with only the clothes on their back.
and now a problem that used to be 1.3 is 5.3
So desperate to justify your internal myth of Judaism being persecuted by everyone, always. Jews were perfectly safe within islamic countries including Iran, and all religions lived alongside each other in Palestine for centuries too. It is zionism which has brought terror to non jews and caused people to be critical of the Occupation. Judaism is accepted. Zionism is poison.
Worse than naive. They have been indoctrinated by Islamist ideology that has permeated all levels of the American educational system
Uti Possiditis Juris is particularly relevant to the West Bank and Jerusalem. In 1948 when Arab armies invaded the newly independent state of Israel, Jordan took over the West Bank and parts of Jerusalem, all of which Israel recaptured in 1967 and the Uti Possiditis Juris established Israel's right to take over under international law. This principle functions to maintain the boundaries of the territory that will be made into a State through a binding Mandate on Israel's Rights to its original boundaries which is also included in this principle.
This is the kind of logical precision that helps us see how inflated accusations often misuse terms. We ALL need to be remind ourselves of the core meanings of words so as to recognise their misuse, either out of (deliberate) ignorance or a political bias. THANKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Logical to the uneducated
Everyone should share this
Lecture and explanation. It does clear up a lot of ignorant questions that usually come from
Journalists who try to push their
Own Agenda.
This was a fascinating lecture. Thank you Natasha Hausdorff. I will be looking for more of your lectures.
Natasha Hausdorff must go mainstream. I am fed up uneducated people screaming occupation, apartheid.
Who are these uneducated people?
Amen
BBC wouldn't allow
@@MrBootIt BBShit does not have intellectual capacity to keep us with Natasha
Please review ICC, ICJ , human rights watch , and amnesty international recent report on genocide . It’s amazing to see how Jews through out the history of the world have been champions of humans rights and equality of all but in this case are just not able to appreciate what the whole world is watching and understanding . And how different is that from Natasha Hausdorff explanation . All major humanitarian
Organizations including B’ Tselem a Jewish Israel based human rights organization can’t be untruthful or biased at one time? On one issue ? Can they all be lying or ignorant or anti semitic ?
Great to hear a clear description of the origins of the region in law
Nothing clear. All is trying to confuse and convince of the legitimacy of land grabbing when actually is in fact stealing palestinians of their territory.
What a phenomenal lawyer, thinker and professional woman Natasha is!
Hear! Hear!
She puts across the FACTS in a very logical way. For someone .ike myself (a man from the street) this comes across with clarity and in a professional manner. I am amazed in the bias of certain msm that although using the International Law as a bettering ram against certain states (including Israel) are so up themselves that even a 5 minute search (especially on the internet) debunked their social biases when presented with FACTS such as this.
One must remember..we might not like certain things or actions or even Israel in this case..but they ARE following International Law..in fact with the IDF..they are going above and below to actually save lives by (losing) the military and tactical initiative by TELLING people BEFOREHAND..that they ARE going to demolish/attack
Israel. Never received. Credit.. For. Anything.. Telling. The. Enemy.; civilians. Get. Out. For. Your. Safety. True. Till. Till. Now. 2o2
OF COURSE THE SETTLEMENTS IN THE WEST BANK ARE ILLEGAL. No country has the right to take land militarily. No country has a right to expel people for having the wrong religion. No country has a right to establish new urbanizations in places that are not part of their recognized territory. No country has the right to demolish houses of people that have lived there for generations. No country has the right to claim rights on anything that happened over 3000 years ago. Can you imagine the chaos if everyone acted like Israel?
Very inaccurate comment.
The lady is just marvelous, very attractive, very eloquent, very smart and adorable. We pray for her and the peace for Israel.
Natasha, please try to give these amazing explanations on every media platform possible 🙏🏻
I listened to Ms Hausdorff talk, what a strong determined young woman.
Ms Hausdorff is quoting historical matters of international law. Why is Israel having and issue with the UN. Is the UN ignoring these laws?
The UN is made up of 193 countries. Many are dictatorships and human rights abusers, they all vote and voice opinions according to interests and never with regard to justice. To expect the UN to "behave" with honesty, morality or justice is naive in the extreme.
Jerusalem the eternal capital of the Jewish nation. No one can change history and truth
This lady taught a Sa panel regarding misinformation regarding international law
this woman is amazing, her heart is pure and her beauty is clear
She is incredible.......how she can justify the genocide of the Palestinian people on their ancestral lands and all the satanic evil of the illegal occupation whilst pretending to be someone who respects the common decency contained within the Law.
She has an Audry Hepburn thing in her style and looks .
@@philip5940 she looks like a witch..... people's exterior is a reflection of their internal state ......
Natasha and Einat Wilf would make an unbelievable team for the truth on Israel!
I think you meant 'unbearable.'
You are brilliant and sharp. it is really interesting to listen to your coherent and well structed answers and lecture. Thank you
Thank you. I note well there's many war crime allegations against Israel but none against Hamas. Since when were rape, kidnap and torture not a war crime? Was not Putin named a war criminal for kidnap and torture?
Exactly!!
What? An exception is being made to Israel? Thank you for this thorough analysis.
This felt worth a watch for my learning efforts of different viewpoints :)
fantastic lady. Very proud of you.
G'd bless you! Israel forever!
This is so important for people to know. She’s so clear. Thank you.
Such beauty with such cutting intellect and analysis,,
Beauty? You have questionable taste😂
@@NaJAl-v2lWell the jokes on you 😂😂Only shows you aren't able to understand beauty!
Thank you sincerely for creating and posting this extremely informative video.
Butiful and smart Natasha❤
Wow! What a grasp on international law you have Natasha , even i could follow your clear presentation , i found it very interssting and informative
How do you know?
@@leslie-annmills-gomez8763 how do i know what ?
OF COURSE THE SETTLEMENTS IN THE WEST BANK ARE ILLEGAL. No country has the right to take land militarily. No country has a right to expel people for having the wrong religion. No country has a right to establish new urbanizations in places that are not part of their recognized territory. No country has the right to demolish houses of people that have lived there for generations. No country has the right to claim rights on anything that happened over 3000 years ago. Can you imagine the chaos if everyone acted like Israel?
The whole world should be compelled to pay attention to this wonderful persons brilliant discussions.
GREAT LECTURE AND VERY EDUCATIONAL.. THE WORLD NEED TO BE EDUCATED IN THESE MATTERS TO UNDESTAND WHERE THE CONFLICTS LAY
So important
Thank you
Im still curious why nation can recongnize Pali-land but not Taiwan
Wonderfully clear explanation. Thank you very much.
Terrific post, Natasha.
More like terrorist post. Defending ethnic cleansing and genocide.
Amazing presentation, thank you so much.
That cleared up a lot of fuzzy areas for me. It's great to get such a clear explanation in one place.
@lbs7774 LMAO, when you make your own laws, you can call anything you want illegal.
There is nothing illegal about Israeli settlements.
Besides the fact that in many cases countries have the absolute right to take land militarily, for instance when countries are being attacked from that land, Israel did not *take* that land, it simply removed the illegal occupier, Jordan. Israel has every right to allow Jews to live where they wish, especially in territories which are its sovereign land under international law.
Every country in the world demolishes illegally built houses or other buildings.
3000 years of rights are indeed a very good "bonus" However, Israel does not rely on old rights, it has every right, legal, moral, logical and humanitarian right to self-determination.
We don't need to imagine the chaos that arises when people like you do not respect international law. We can see it happening in front of our eyes. Not only on October 7th but across much of the Middle East, for many years.
This lady explained on many occasions that she volunteers to tell the truth, your assertion that she is being paid by Israel is another indication that you are unable to recognize the truth even when it hits you in the face.
She is incredibly beautiful and wise. I love her with whole my heart❤
No mindless slogans and aggression ; erudite explanation of the actual law . Of course many people prefer mindless slogans , baseless claims and wallowing in victimhood .
Great. Thanks to Natasha for the great presentation
HOW IS THE U N HELD ACCOUNTABLE ?
The Muslim world: *crickets …!!!
Love this video. The discussion is very fascinating. Natasha presented the material in a systematic way. Overall it was very informative. I feel like I was in a mini law class but enjoyed it very much...
Very interesting presentation and very clarifying . Thanks for this excellent explanation of International Laws and the status of the territories of Israel .
OF COURSE THE SETTLEMENTS IN THE WEST BANK ARE ILLEGAL. No country has the right to take land militarily. No country has a right to expel people for having the wrong religion. No country has a right to establish new urbanizations in places that are not part of their recognized territory. No country has the right to demolish houses of people that have lived there for generations. No country has the right to claim rights on anything that happened over 3000 years ago. Can you imagine the chaos if everyone acted like Israel?
Thank You Natasha , Thank You Med
Thank you for dispelling so many prevalent myths. Very clear.
Did I not jest see you at a pro-Palestine channel. Do you think any of these asses will recognize any of this? I doubt it.
OF COURSE THE SETTLEMENTS IN THE WEST BANK ARE ILLEGAL. No country has the right to take land militarily. No country has a right to expel people for having the wrong religion. No country has a right to establish new urbanizations in places that are not part of their recognized territory. No country has the right to demolish houses of people that have lived there for generations. No country has the right to claim rights on anything that happened over 3000 years ago. Can you imagine the chaos if everyone acted like Israel?
Thank you for this video and thank you for what you do.
Very informative. Thank you
Is there an international law reference to the so called ‘Palestinians’ refugees and their residing in camps in Israel? And their confinement of them to camps out side of Israel in other countries who don’t integrate them into their respective counties, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and perhaps now Egypt.
Thank you, for a brilliant presentation
There are NO refugees within the State of Israel. All arabs who remained since 1948 became full citizens. Only their surrounding "brother" states keeps them in camps and don't allow them to become citizens.
Palastinians refugees in camps in Israel? What? First time hearing this.
Believe me there are no concentration camps inside of Israel.
Secondly they are not refugees, most if not all palastinians weren't born in the boarders of Israel 1948. Making them legally not refugees they were born in another land, they should be integrated to the country they were born in.
If you build refugee camps for 75 years, is it really refugge camp or is it just a reason for worlds attention
@@JohnPean-xy2ou -correct sir, they are attempting to denigrate israel on world stage to make their move to steal more ancient jewish land when they already own 99% of the lands around israel,predictable anti-jewish hatred festering for centuries
Wonderful. Thank you.🌺
Wonderful presentation. Clear and concise. Thank you.
100% spot-on!
the original of this video was posted 3 years ago... just for information.
Thank you Natasha Hausdorff. You've articulated very succinctly my own views of the situation in Judea and Samaria (West Bank).
Judea and Sumeria are not in existence.
Please Natasha take BBC to court for creating anti Israel
wouldn't that be nice
Well done.
We have the best lawyers ever💎
I cant remember what she said but I agree completely....wow 😳
She need to be in the Likud in the Knesset
She’s a star
Thank you. Very clear God bless you.
Thank you so much, wonderful talk 👍
Well probably no more question cause the audience is dumb founded at the legal aspect of international that even the ICJ failed to see or do not want to hear or see. With all those high end lawyers commanding top dollars, one is wondering if they are worth their pay or salary. This is not an excuse to differ with Natashas legal view which is buttress by examples. These organization willingly and wild interpretation of the law is abhorring and condemnable. Their top officials should resign starting from the UN head for incitement of violence if I may say.Natasha has long way to go and would be a great asset to any organization!
OF COURSE THE SETTLEMENTS IN THE WEST BANK ARE ILLEGAL. No country has the right to take land militarily. No country has a right to expel people for having the wrong religion. No country has a right to establish new urbanizations in places that are not part of their recognized territory. No country has the right to demolish houses of people that have lived there for generations. No country has the right to claim rights on anything that happened over 3000 years ago. Can you imagine the chaos if everyone acted like Israel?
Brilliant lady!
Brilliant!
What an amazing depth of analysis from the most qualified expert! Thanks for explaining! All, please share this video with the world. I've forwarded to Twitter. Thank you, Natasha Hausdorff!
Thank you so very much
Natasha sound good the other sound bad!
What about the UN supported appropriation of West Papua by Sukarno's Indonesia?
So , all this lecture is informing me of is the fact that that there is an organisation named UK lawyers for Israel. One can always use the law to back up an argument. International law does not apply to the United States of America or Israel. While there may be certain laws that may apply
in certain situations it is always extremely difficult to extend the laws to certain countries that do not recognise same.
You got that right ! And now they are all crying to the big brother for help !
Brilliant lady❤
Brilliant!!!!
I have watched your three videos over the last day and must congratulate you on an excellent and objective summary.
In trying to understand the issue there is one point I am unclear on. As I understand it the declaration of independence in 1948 was not accompanied by a map. Is this correct?
If so, was it Israel’s intention to only include the land allocated to it as part of the proposed partition? If so, what is the status of the remaining land? There is an English international lawyer named Natasha Hausdorf who makes out a very cogent case that Israel has a rightful claim under international law to all of the land from the British Mandate left over from the creation of Jordan ie including the West Bank and Gaza. th-cam.com/video/LCLPB2ibGNQ/w-d-xo.html
By her arguments, the West Bank settlements cannot be illegal and Israel cannot have annexed any land because it is not owned by any other sovereign state. Her argument is weakened - but not entirely disproved - by Israel’s actions in handing Gaza over in 2005 and agreeing the three zones or areas in the West Bank.
It can be argued that the Palestinians, by rejecting the original proposals in the 1940s together with subsequent ones, have actually undermined their claim to the West Bank but perhaps that is more an academic than a practical point.
On a second point, in the second video in this series, you mentioned that Egypt refused to take over responsibility for Gaza as part of the Camp David discussions. Does anyone have a source for this? I saw it mentioned elsewhere but cannot find a direct source.
Thanks again for the excellent videos.
Mike, in several talks, she said that Israel can (like other countries can about their borders) negotiate agreements over its land. And Israel did so with the Arabs. Unfortunately, on October 7th we learnt the folly of that.
As for the Egyptians refusing to take Gaza back, I am sure that you will be able to find a reference for it if you look at the Kemp-David negotiations. But it is clear even today that Egypt does not want anything to do with the Palestinians.
@@יוסידניאלי-ת1נ Thanks for your comment. Rather embarassingly, I meant my comment for Dr Henry Abramson rather than this channel! I thought TH-cam had rejected it! He has prepared 3 excellent half hour talks giving the background to the dispute. You are correct that she has mentioned the ability of a state to change its boundaries by agreement. I presume you are in Israel. If so, please accept my best wishes at this very difficult time. Natasha is becoming quite a TV star here in the uk. Our national broadcaster, the BBC, has come in for some criticism for biased reporting favouring the Palestinian side. If you have the time and the inclination you may want to have a look at Natasha's interview with Katya Adler where Natasha puts her right on a few points. th-cam.com/video/LdW6ISElci4/w-d-xo.html
I think you have to watch a video again, the partition plan included a proposal of two states on the territory map of which you saw, but it looks like if the other side didn't claim this part, the land in its entirety belongs to Israel that agreed on this proposal and formed a state. I personally always thought Israel made a mistake to not declare its sovereignty over the west bank and gaza after the 1967 war. After listening to Natasha and doing a bit of reading on the subject it is clear. As far as Palestinians, they never wanted a state, it's an Islamic thing. Muslims wanted the whole land and no Jews
Too complicated for me.
Fair enough. It's all about law which requires understanding concepts such as sovereignty and the difference between international and domestic law. It's worth persevering though, because law is at the heart of the conflict.
Great presentation of Israel and international law. Thank you Natasha Hausdorff.
Does the Sykes-picot Anglo French agreement 1916 concerning borders of Lebanon, Palestine Syria have any bearing on current International Law ? Ditto for the famous post first world war 1920 San Remo Conference which settled the British Mandate's territory ?
Are you saying that peoples(Jews Muslim and Christiens) who have been living there for hundreds even thousands of years does not have any right to their land.?
Many people living in Israel have and hold every right to their land. Of all races and faiths.
Some individuals lost their claims in a war of annihilation that was forced on Israel, BTW, a war that is still going on.
It is very sad for these people, and they should have a claim against the states that launched the war in an attempt to destroy Israel.
I wish them luck.
Israel, for its share, has already in the 50s absorbed more than 800,000 Jewish refugees who had to escape the same Arab countries that attacked Israel.
Like the Arabs who lost properties due to Arab aggression, the Jews also were not yet compensated.
She's intelligent and beautiful.
10:00 I couldn't follow this. Why does Israel automatically assumed the full mandate borders when there were always disputing sides?
uti possidetis juris (UPJ) is a principle of customary international law that serves to preserve the boundaries of colonies emerging as States. Originally applied to establish the boundaries of decolonized territories in Latin America, UPJ has become a rule of wider application, notably in Africa.
@@AdelinaMullerand there were no other states declared for the mandate of palastine, only Israel did it in 1948
@@SvenSteffenArndt correct.
But even if there were, it is not possible to split the land. Though Israel could enter into agreements on its terms.
But of course as you said, no other state has been declared.
I am not an expert, but I believe if the Arab residents of Mandatory Palestine had also declared their independence on areas offered to them, then they would have more legal standing in regard to "occupation". But because they decided not to declare independence, the borders default to Israel as the only country claiming independence within those borders.
thanks @@AdelinaMuller
brilliant
ISRAEL (vis-à-vis Settlements) DOES NOT VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL LAW, period. ✡👍❤🇮🇱
And sun is black
Can you elaborate on your ignorance??
Say BiBi and IDF
Of course it does. Period. No other country has the right to do what Israel does to the original people from the land they want to expel them from. The world is watching how Israel is a terrorist state. Period.
And YES OF COURSE THE SETTLEMENTS IN THE WEST BANK ARE ILLEGAL. No country has the right to take land militarily. No country has a right to expel people for having the wrong religion. No country has a right to establish new urbanizations in places that are not part of their recognized territory. No country has the right to demolish houses of people that have lived there for generations. No country has the right to claim rights on anything that happened over 3000 years ago. Can you imagine the chaos if everyone acted like Israel?
Very interesting. Nothing mentioned though regarding Arab portion of UN partition. What happened with that
@@teeenn4593 " the Palestinian portions didn’t as it were cease to exist". An absolute nonsense, "the Palestinian portion" never existed.
History revisionists like you are a big part of the problem.
@teeenn4593
181 was an irrelevant recommendation. If it had been accepted it could have created an Arab territory, as it was not, it remains a meaningless resolution.
BTW, it is important to note that 181 never mentioned Palestinians, just Arabs.
Also, Arabs already have 21 states and 1 autonomy, and 1 of these 21 States was carved out from the geographical area that was called Palestine (the Land of Israel). 75% of it was given to the Jordanian Arabs.
@@teeenn4593 nothing bizarre about it. UN GA resolutions have no legal validity. They are declarations only, and 181 was rejected by the Arabs.
My understanding of what Natasha has said is that, since the partition (which was designed to create two states) was rejected by the Arabs, only one state actually came into being and thus inherited the territory of the former mandate. Jordan became an occupier of the West Bank and East Jerusalem and Egypt the occupier of Gaza. If the Arabs had accepted the partition plan at the time of the expiry of the mandate then two states would have come into being, and in the borders designated by the proposed partition plan. Basically, they gambled that the Jews would be wiped out by the invading Arab armies and they would have the entire country to themselves. It didn't happen, and they lost everything as a result. Sad, but true. Actions have consequences.
@@jakeedwards6639Thank you for explaining/ summary
Superb!
However much you may wish to ramble on, Natasha, what would you ultimately like?
A one or a two-state solution??
What is it??
Israel 🇮🇱
Why can’t Israel live in Israel and the Palestinians in West Bank and Gaza?
So in summary your opinion is it is legal to intimidate, terrorise and kick Palestinians out of their homes and drive them off of their land?
You are a demagogue.
Exactly. But don't you dare ask because then you are antisemitic.
Straw man. She said nothing approaching that.
@@lbs7774You can ask any question you like, even a silly one.
You
Is the assumption, that IL is a belligerrent occupier, correct in Juda and Shomron as the souverän since 1948 ?
It´s not very interesting if the correct legal word for the presence of Israel on the Westbank since 1967 is `occupation` or not.
It´s much more interesting who the people were that lived there in 1967 and live there now, and how Israel is treating these inhabitants. And that does not make a nice picture for Israel, I´m afraid.
And by the way, if the Westbank is part of Israel, then Israel should give the inhabitants citizenship and the right to vote.
Stupidity of Palestiniannot to declare the establishment of their State and territory. They forfeit all their claims when they reject the partition and go to war.
You must also consider who was evicted in 1948, many Jews were evicted.
Наташа молодец.
ממש מקצועית, עבודה טובה
But Israel didn’t get the West Bank or Gaza assigned to them according to the British plan in 1947.
She addressed that
@@gunsalves no she had the map as the entire Palestine region including the WB and Gaza. They weren’t part of the British/UN plan. That plan called for two states. So when Israel declared independence, it shouldn’t have covered all of the territory.
@@ericlind6581 it does legally. That's how it works as there is no other state in that land. She explained that.
@@gunsalves Yes she explained that part but my question isn’t about the claiming, it’s about the borders. Cause she had a map of the entire Palestine Mandate but it was to be divided into two states, not a single territory, so there was supposed to be another state in the land. So a claim by one party can’t be valid over the land designated for another party.
@@ericlind6581 the other party didn't agree... only one state was made.
Settlements
Fancy words FOR STILING ATHER PEOPLE FREEDOM AND PROPERTY PROPERTY PROPERTY
Is there not an obligation on Egypt to take Gaza on as it was a part of it territory upon its founding , and became part of Israel in 1967(?)
@@teeenn4593 You are wrong again.
Egypt is a signatory to a Pan-African agreement that requires it to take refugees in wartime and as a result of natural disasters.
Egypt is a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967
Protocol, as well as to the 1969 OAU Convention Governing the
Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa. There are
approximately 40,000 registered people of concern to UNHCR in
the country, from 38 different nationalities. At the end of 2009, 58
per cent were Sudanese, 17 per cent Iraqis and 17 per cent Somalis.
There was also a growing number of Eritreans and Ethiopians.
In the absence of a national asylum system, all activities
pertaining to registration, documentation and refugee status
determination (RSD), as well as the provision of assistance and the
search for durable solutions, are carried out by UNHCR under a
framework agreement signed with the Government in 1954.
Egypt is both a refugee-receiving and a transit country, often
for irregular movements of people, in particular through the
northern Sinai. Addressing the challenges posed by these
movements in a manner that is mindful of Egypt’s legitimate
security concerns, while respecting the principle of
non- remains a priority for UNHCR.
Egypt gave up gaza because of hamas terror activities
Natasha, I sincerely wonder what would be the boundaries of the states had two entities declared statehood and emerged. I guess it would have been impossible for both Israel and Palestine to have declared statehood independence at the same time--one would have preceded the other. So the first to declare statehood gets it all under Uti Possidetis Juris? Okay, I guess for two or more states to emerge from a territory would require agreements that would determine boundaries.
She's cute
Prior of the creation of the state of Israel..there is not a place known as Palestine?There are no Palestinian peoples be them being Muslim,Jews or Christien?
Individual people were living in the geographical area called Palestine, the Land of Israel. (albeit very few in numbers).
They still live in Israel, Jews, Arabs Christians... the only democracy in the Middle East. There was only one nation (a People) living there and that was the Jewish nation.
You must be very careful not to conflate, individuals with nations, or private land with state land.
People who try to make a case for the Palestinians in Israel often pretend that the different terms mean the same thing. They lie, and they lie because if they use the right terminology they will not have a case to make.
@@AdelinaMuller Israel is not a democracy. Calling Israel a democracy is an insult to people's intelligence. So either you are not intelligent or you just lie. Israel can't call itself a democracy because it operates a brutal military regime in the Palestinian territories (i.e. West Bank and Gaza) and suppresses the rights of the majority of the population of those territories who identify as Palestinians.
Also Israel's claim to the land is of questionable value... Just because the supposed ancestors of Israeli Jews controlled the land 3,000 years ago this doesn't give a "divine" right to their alleged descendants to kick other people from their homes... Anyone who knows history knows that all those Jews who went to Palestine in the 20th century came from Europe or North Africa or some Middle Eastern country... and frankly the British colonialists who indeed helped the Jews against the Arabs in order to create Israel didn't do that because they thought that Jews had more historical rights to the land than Arabs but they did it because they thought that it's better for both Jews and non-Jews in Europe if Jews had their own state in Palestine... It was just a convenient solution for them and it had nothing to do with historical and religious claims to the land... But even the early zionists in early 20th century had alternative options for a Jewish state in other areas of the world if they weren't able to create a Jewish state in Palestine.
Search for funny video, name one Palestinian leader from 200 years ago
Israel is actually YASHAR ALAH, meaning Prince of God in reference to Jacob or Yakub. Jerusalem was formerly Urusalim - Urushalim - Urushalem, god of the dusk from the same root S L M - Shalom cognate with the Arabic Salam. He was a Canaanite god. The Palestinians, according to the latest DNA along with the Jews are descendants of the Canaanites. "Archeologic and genetic data support tat both Jews and Palestinians came from the ancient Canaanites, who extensively mixed with Egyptians, Mesopotamian and Anatolian people in ancient times". National Institutes of Health (gov). "DNA from the Bible's Canaanites lives on in modern Arabs and Jews who have lived in the region". National Geographic. "Palestinians are Canaanites they are not originally from the Arabian Peninsula. This genetic analysis proves that Palestinians are mostly Canaanites; they have higher Canaanite DNA than the Jews. So what makes you native and not them. They were just Arabized". AskMiddleEast
U lie so much