Natasha Hausdorff, the legal director of the UK Lawyers for Israel Charitable Trust, has clashed with MPs on the Foreign Affairs Select Committee over Israel’s compliance with international law during the war in Gaza.
Hausdorff was one of three witnesses, together with Yesh Atid MK Shelly Tal Maron and analyst Jonathan Sacerdoti, who testified during a hearing on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
But it was during the evidence given by Hausdorff that the session took on a more heated atmosphere.
During her testimony, Hausdorff discussed what she termed the “international legal war against Israel” and suggested that international law was being “weaponised” against the Jewish State.
At several points during her answers, Thornberry interrupted Hausdorff and challenged some of her comments, including at one point asking the lawyer to “calm down” after Hausdorff described the Hamas government in Gaza a “genocidal, Islamist regime”.
Later in the hearing, asked by the Liberal Democrats’ Richard Foord about the proportionality of Israel’s campaign and whether the IDF had properly distinguished between militant and civilian targets, Hausdorff said: “The only way a proper analysis...can be conducted is if the information that was available to the operatives that undertook that strike in advance of conducting it can be properly assessed.
“We simply don’t know what that is as it is not in the public domain.
“But I would say that the two entities I’m aware of that Israel has shared elements of sensitive intelligence of this nature with – the UK government and the US government – have consistently said they do not have concerns about Israel’s approach to international humanitarian law so far as targeting...”
At that point, Thornberry once more cut in before Hausdorff could finish her sentence, labelling Hausdorff’s claim “an extraordinary allegation” and warning her to “be careful what you’re saying”.
Hausdorff responded: “I beg your pardon? I beg your pardon? I've come here in good faith to answer questions and from the moment I walked in the room I’ve been barracked and told to be quiet when I’m trying to answer questions.”
Allowed to continue her answer, in Thornberry’s words, “accurately and with care”, the lawyer continued: “The UK and the US have consistently said that so far as targeting and proportionality, which is what your question pertains to, that there are not concerns.”
She admitted that other concerns “have been raised”, particularly alluding to the suspension of humanitarian aid going into Gaza, but claimed these were “based on incorrect information”.
Asked by Thornberry why, in that context, the UK government has partially suspended arms sales to Israel (with ministers maintaining they were required to do so due to the risk of such weapons being involved in violations of international law) Hausdorff replied: “I might ask this committee to look into that very question, because there is no nexus between the concerns that this government has raised on detention and aid and the arms that have been embargoed.
“There is a very great concern that I have that, absent a nexus,… that is not a decision that can be lawful.”
Elsewhere in the hearing, Hausdorff fielded questions from Abtisam Mohamed, one of two Labour MPs deported from Israel earlier this month, with Israeli officials claiming that her visit was “intended to provoke anti-Israel activities”.
Hausdorff had defended Israel’s decision and it was the debate around the deportations that led to her stormy LBC interview earlier this month.
The pair discussed the legality of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, which the UK government consider illegal under international law, with Mohamed asking why Hausdorff felt the “occupations” were legal.
Hausdorff responded: “One cannot annex what is one’s own sovereign territory so the term annexation is misplaced here. Likewise the term occupation.”
Using the example of Ukraine potentially retaking Crimea from Russian occupation, she went on: “If Ukraine were to recover Crime from Russia, in the same way that Israel recovered the West Bank...and East Jerusalem from Jordan… the same rules have to apply.”
Hausdorff based this assertion on the legal principle of Usi possideties juris, a “universal” rule that any newly-established state retains the borders that were in place immediately prior to its formation. Under this principle, Hausdorff has argued that the West Bank was within Israel’s borders at the time of its formation in 1948 and, therefore, cannot be occupied by Israel as its sovereign territory.
She also rejected Mohamed’s assertion that Palestinians are “entitled to a state”, saying: “not according to international law”.
