The Lawfare War Against Israel: Why the West is Next — Transcript

So frankly, when you know Medi 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, Medi and others, is yes. They're all wrong for the same reasons because they're all regurgitating the same false information. 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.

wrong for the same reasons because they're all regurgitating the same false information. 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 Heddorf 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 Avitz, for Rwanda. Now it's a headline. It's a hashtag. Now it's the

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 Vise, 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 lie apart line by line. The ICJ, the ICC, Amnesty, all of it. 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 Heddorf, welcome to The Honest Take.

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

It's really a pleasure to be with you.

years inside these courtrooms. She's taken the genocide liel apart line by line. the ICJ, the ICC, Amnesty, all of it. And she's sounding an alarm that goes far beyond one country. What's being done to Israel is being engineered

You are a British barrister. You went to Oxford. You clerked for the Chief Justice of the Israeli Supreme Court.

You are a British barristister. You 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.

Yeah. Uh so before we get into the uh 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? The are you the lawyer or the

Wow. Since 1847.

law and the international rule of law. Uh and I think that's critical. So um I speak about other subjects u not just Israel and um that's important because international law has to be universally applicable. Um it's just interesting

Yeah. We've counted.

Israel newswise um is wallto-wall which I know is honest reporting you guys will be extremely familiar with. Um, but I think that especially in the context of Israel, um, the fact that my commentary analysis is informed by what is pretty

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?

and my experiences of the the legal system in Israel. And I think that's a real advantage. Um we often say that you know jurors are are bringing their own life experience to cases that they sit on. uh and here um I'm not just drawing

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 newswise 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. 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. The UN hostile environment.

lawyers that are really impacting the day-to-day application of um a lot of these international law rules on the ground. the UN hostile environment. You have also gone on Piers Morgan. Um there is an episode uh where for 76 minutes he and Dave

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. What is it actually like in that room?

And is there any point where you want to say like this is pointless? Um I'm afraid frequently there have been situations in which um exchanges have felt pointless either because people weren't listening or because um I wasn't being permitted to speak or um in many

And is there any point where you want to say, like, this is pointless?

hesitation grappling with um so long as I'm permitted to speak. And in this recent sort of you know debate ambush with um Owen Jones um I had the sound turned down and and only realized you know after the event that what I was

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—I thought it was an interview—that was sprung on me at the last moment, and 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 debate ambush with Owen Jones, I had the sound turned down and only realized, after the event, that what I was saying was simply not audible to the audience. So those are situations in which that element of "what on earth is the point?" does feature. 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 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 I think it's imperative that I and others keep engaging in the vast majority of these instances. I've drawn the line at, 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.

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 um host is simply unwilling to accept um the

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. And like, what does that say? That the answer to this, instead of fighting with facts, they're fighting with silencing you?

it's imperative that I and others um keep engaging in the vast majority of these instances. Um you know I've I've drawn the line at say sharing a platform with um those who've been uh imprisoned for for terrorist uh char terrorist

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. I 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, which 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, well, 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...

Yeah. I mean, I 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. And like what does that say that the um that the answer to this instead of fighting with

facts they're fighting with silencing you? Uh well I can't claim the sort of accolades that the great Hillel Neuer has of of being interrupted quite in that quite in that same way. But um it's right that you know I've been

reprimanded and and criticized. Um I think it was I think it was my tone and choice of language uh from recollection some time ago and I thought that was remarkable because again if you listen to my speech it is it is deeply critical

um of the council and of um you know what I'm often speaking about which is the weaponization of international law uh and it being used for this process of lawfare not just against Israel I I would hasten to add but unfortunately

Israel seems to be the primary target here um that uh that there didn't seem to be anything, you know, particularly problematic uh in the way that I was expressing that in in particular because uh 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. Um, so I don't know. Again, my response to to that uh theatrical display uh is to say, well, I think it speaks volumes for how

ridiculous this organization has become. Um, and I think in every one of these instances, you know, be it interviews or be it parliamentary committees, um, you know, where in one instance the chair got extremely cross and started wagging

her finger at me and interrupting me or or be it at the United Nations. In every one of these instances, I think um the vast majority of those watching know exactly what's going on and it highlights um the really deep-seated

problems that exist. And that simply wouldn't be the case if if I refuse to turn up.

Do they do do people tell you that in person after after these moments uh on the on the floor of the human rights council? cuz I know Hell Neuer when he was on the show he said that people did

come up to him but came up to him privately and the it struck me that if you're going to say it privately why not say it publicly.

Uh 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 um you know the social cost associated with sticking your head up

above the parapit. Um but certainly privately every single day um uh hundreds if not thousands of of messages of emails that I I have to always apologize. I I I find it impossible to keep on top of and I'm not able to

respond. Um but uh that and also you know posts and exchanges where people reference um arguments that that I have um sought to put into the public domain that they'd never heard before and um change their perspective on everything,

you know, to individual um 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 uh again

you know every every encouragement um and every incentive to to keep going and I do think that um 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 as forcefully as possible in in every possible um uh medium and uh and and taking every opportunity.

um because otherwise there is a vacuum. Uh and I for one am not going to continue to permit um that vacuum of proper analysis and of the law and of the facts um and an explanation of 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.

Let's get into the specifics of of what you do and how you're involved with this. the uh UK lawyers for Israel. In one sentence, what does it actually do?

Well, UK LFI was set up as a voluntary association of uh lawyers to um work for the proper application of international law to Israel, the proper application of of domestic law, combating anti-semitism, providing support to victims uh of anti-semitism and uh its

operations are really incredibly expansive across schools and universities and local government and international uh organizations um tribunals uh and courts. So in every respect where the law is relevant either to what um allegations are being put forward uh or to the protections that

need to be uh enforced and applied um the lawyers of of UK lawyers for Israel are ready, willing and able to assist.

Um and in parallel with that um I'm very privileged uh now to be also at the helm of a of an entity called the center for international rule of law um which sees a very very real danger um of the

weaponization of international law against western civilization. And so the focus there um is across the academy, across uh international uh legal practice, across the way that international law is deployed by politicians um seeking to educate about what real international law is and as I

say push back against that weaponization of international law um against uh western civilization. of the way it is being um manipulated, abused in order to be deployed uh against free countries in the world by people who quite frankly um

seek to take our way of life away from us. I I really do want to get into that weaponization of uh international law against the West as we as we get into this. Um you've briefed uh parliaments across Europe, the UN, the Security

Council. um what what do those briefings actually look like? Who's in the room? So, often a mixture of politicians. Um I was most recently in Canada and spoke to a variety of politicians from different parties who um had been invited and

attended the briefing. Um occasionally organizations that are local in countries I'm visiting will set up um specific meetings with departments, for example, the foreign affairs or or trade departments of of various countries. um and um 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. Um and it really is wherever I I feel that I can be helpful and where those

invitations are are coming from to seek to educate on what real international law is. Um so I'm not a politician and I certainly don't speak to the politics um of decisions that countries are taking but so often um they uh will you know

politicians or officials or civil servants will characterize the approach that they are taking um you know with respect to Israel or 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. Um, so providing input and answering questions um, on these contentious issues um, as and when I can is is something that, you know, I'm always very happy and and open to do.

And again, I I see that as part of that continuing duty to uphold the rule of law. Um, public education is very important, but educating the decision makers um, is is arguably also um, hugely significant.

Let's get into the the legal charges. Um, of of all of them that are levied against Israel, aparttheid, occupation, genocide, which do you think has done the most damage? What's what's the where is the front that you're most worried

about in this? Is there one? 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. Um and it's one it's one that certainly involves this

concept of projection and I see this across all of the legal terminology that is used to um certainly to target Israel in this respect. So that is you know occupation well actually there was an occupation um the Ottoman occupation

that the British occupation under the mandate um prior to the establishment of the state of Israel. uh and that concept of of occupation which is you know a territory being held by another sovereign um is certainly not applicable

uh to Israel post 1948 um not under the framework of occupation in international law. You know apartheid um well I can show you where the real apartheid is. It does exist um in in this territory. It exists in the West Bank in Judea and

Samaria. And if you or or those watching have traveled in that territory, they will probably have seen big red signs around area A, which is um entirely controlled by the Palestinian Authority civily and and militarily. And those signs warn Israeli citizens um that it

is an offense to enter that territory. Now, they don't really mean um Israeli citizens. They mean Jews because Israeli Arabs don't have a problem going in and back out, but Jews do. And we saw um the horrendous evidence of of of what would

befall um those that that uh in respect of two reserveists. I believe it was in the year 2000 um who mistakenly found themselves in Ramala had taken a wrong turn, went to a local police station and were promptly lynched um by a baying mob

um with extremely gruesome consequences. Um so there is the apartheite the fact that areas that are controlled by the Palestinian authority after the international agreement of the Oslo Accords. Um they have been ethnically cleansed of their Jews and they remain

Yudin. So apartheid is part of that projection. Um you also mentioned genocide. But before we get to that we've got of course this recurring allegation of ethnic cleansing. Um, you know, again, those areas that I just described in 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. Um and then you know ultimately we get to this this abhorrent charge uh cannard of genocide. Um 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 give it credence and credibility and that's exactly what those who started to deploy this um allegation uh were seeking to achieve.

Now this this deployment of this allegation genocide is not new. Um more recently uh I've seen reports of it in fact being part and parcel of the Soviet propaganda against Zionism decades ago, right? Um but on a personal level I also

remember participating in a debate um on the radio in in the UK um in studio uh about um 2014. So it was suk tan uh and my opponent was using that charge then right this is not new. So then one has

to question you why has this um 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 um of uh of those proceedings and when I say that I'm referring to the provisional measures orders that the court has issued um 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. Um what the court in fact did and I appreciate it might sound technical but we're here.

We're having this conversation. I think it's important. Um this is was one of my questions. So absolutely please. This is what I think we really need to describe. No, please go for it. So um in the context of the

provisional measures assessment, the court isn't taking into account any of the evidence, any of the facts. Um 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 um extremely basic, almost bizarrely so. Um 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 uh 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 no evidentiary uh burden there right it's this is just does can you bring this case basically exactly what what were the rights that

the South Africans were purporting to um advance on behalf of the Palestinians and was that protection from genocide and therefore as it was it fell under the convention now um it's bizarre because if you read the provisional measures order the court makes this

explicitly clear first of all it's 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 um to the prime minister here in the United Kingdom, which um was signed by hundreds of lawyers and former judges, including

two former judges of the Supreme Court in the United Kingdom um that made this ridiculous claim that the court had found that there was a plausible risk of of genocide. Um and uh of course Joan Donghue, 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 um on hard talk on the BBC and and unprecedentedly, you know, correct the record and say, "No, no, no,

no. What the court was considering was plausible rights and this is what it means." Um even then you know we haven't heard a retraction from um the lawyers and the former judges that put forward this ridiculous position which is

unfortunate and sometimes we still hear media referring to you know plausible genocide is found by the ICJ. So um the facts, the law on this is is really a side point to the optics. And um I was on SABC, the South African version of

the BBC just after that first provisional measures order was um issued. And my counterpart said something on along the lines of, you know, isn't it marvelous? Now we can finally use Israel and 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 um 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 pericious, I mentioned this projection. It exists here of course with genocide too. The 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 Lmin 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 we've seen this recent report um compiled on the sexual violence uh that was meed out systematically and in a premeditated fashion uh against men, women, and children uh 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 uh for rape, slaughter, humiliation, mutilation. Um and that is clear from all of the evidence that has uh come out from the

7th of October. So again we see this projection and this accusation that uh Jews are guilty of committing the crimes that were in fact committed against them. That is you know a start of the reasons that this um this allegation is

so abhorent. But of course, a big big facet of this um is the reality, you 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 kamas torture. Um so and and you know, prevent them uh from forcibly being kept in areas where Hamas wants them to be kept.

Um so in every respect uh it's it's abhorrent it's objectionable but it is 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 uh and also the confidence to call out these you know horrific falsehoods it's a it's astounding um I I think it was Kareem Khan was on Medi Hassan. Um I

mean just the the degree to which this has infected everyone to like it is now a point of fact in in the media sphere.

Kareem Khan is pushing back about what plausible means and Medi Hassan is saying well no but there is a genocide.

Um it's astounding. What was really interesting about that interview um and and it was almost laughable. I'm sorry if it wasn't so serious it would be. Karim Khan suggested that they, you know, 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 uh I think

I've heard in this context because um I reviewed that uh public summary of the application that Karim Khan presented to the ICC and together with UK lawyers for Israel we 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 a 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 Armen. 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 um conducting itself um so out with its role, its jurisdiction um and 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 Kogat um the unit of the Israeli Defense Forces that is responsible uh 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 the charge that Karim Khan went with to base these arrest warrants on was um deliberate starvation.

And the facts that are googable 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 uh and to terrorize the population of the

Gaza Strip in the same way that it had been terrorizing or in similar ways uh to the ways that it it sought to terrorize um Israeli civilians. Um and then on the back of all of this, uh 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 um on him as prosecutor and for that matter as a barrista to put forward any exculpatory or contradictory

evidence in what is an exparte 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 know, 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 Medi Hazan takes on, you know, a rather different quality. um I I wasn't as encouraged uh by the prosecutor's newfound um appreciation supposedly of of evidence given that track record or indeed a very

basic principles of criminal law. Let's not forget that in October 2023, Karim Khan went to the Rafa uh crossing to the border between Egypt and Gaza. He couldn't get into Gaza. Um but he saw in fact what was happening on that border

when the Egyptians were still entirely controlling um the entry and exit point to uh to Gaza from from that uh part of 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 um 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 uh 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.

Um 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 of course

entirely inverted with this bizarre suggestion that Israel would have to prove its innocence. And you know I for one have seen the way that this case has proceeded uh 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 um the Palestinian Authority is not a state. Uh so it cannot join the Rome statute. And it is also in controvention 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 uh jurisdiction, it is also a violation of the court's own rules. Um importantly the rule of complimentarity which requires that the court give any state uh that it is investigating the

opportunity to investigate uh and prosecute um 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 um provided with the opportunity uh to to act. Uh 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 in in this 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 um disgrace uh and it has been accused of being racist. It is 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.

Let's get into the specifics of the genocide convention and and the legality about it. What for for those who haven't read it, what in in a condensed form, what does the word genocide require legally to be proven? So the definition

of genocide in article two of the convention um approaches this crime in two separate parts. One is to set out five acts um including the killing of members of the group or croing conditions that make life impossible um

that are uh 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 um 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 uh to target a group as such uh because those individuals are members of that group. Um and that is reflective as I

say of of the Jewish experience in the Holocaust of Jews being targeted for extermination because they were Jews.

And after World War II, there is this um fascinating debate between uh Raphael Lmin uh who coined the term genocide and Hersh Lauact who um preferred the use of the term crimes against humanity which doesn't include that notion of a group

being targeted um as such because uh the individuals are members of that group. And so, um, 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 in that or not. It is the intention of targeting that group um that that counts.

The uh there there's the only reasonable inference test. Um, can you explain that? And if if a country has an identifiable military objective, as Israel does in Gaza, obviously, what does that do to the genocide charge?

Well, this is really important in the context of armed conflict because one of the um aspects of war, which I appreciate is quite difficult to countenance, to perhaps even get one's head around um when we are so removed

from the realities of war. Um but one of the um sort of accepted natural consequences if you will is that people will die and civilians will die. Um 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. Um and in that respect the um acts of you know

killing members of a group uh are 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 uh strikes that have been committed that result in civilian casualties. Um the laws of armed conflict, I'll just run through them briefly because I think it provides some context. Um there there are four, you know, 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 uh distinction.

One has to distinguish between civilians and combatants on the on the battlefield. You can target combatants.

You must not target civilians. Um one uh additional rule is is the rule of proportionality which is perhaps the most misrepresented aspect of international law. Full stop. And that requires a balancing exercise. So a reasonable military commander must weigh

up the anticipated military advantage of a strike against the civilian the anticipated civilian or collateral damage and that is the balancing um exercise that needs to be conducted. Uh and the the final one that's 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 um as I say it has gone to far greater measures than any other army in history. But those have included warnings, uh evacuation of civilians, the creation of

humanitarian corridors, targeting strikes, um questions of you know munitions, deployment, time of day, um the use of intelligence, all of that are about, you know, taking precautions that prevent civilian casualties as much as possible. So in that context, this test

of the only reasonable inference um has become extremely important. Um and it's um so that especially in the context of armed conflict um one knows how to approach and treat intention. Um it cannot simply be inferred or implied as

so many you know armchair commentators, lawyers, military experts um seem to be suggesting. I mean, I recall that Lord Jonathan Sumption, further a former Supreme Court justice, was indicating that he was basing his legal assessment um of uh of what was happening in Gaza

on the basis of what he was seeing on television. I mean, that just doesn't wash. Not least because unfortunately as as you at Honest Reporting will know, we've just been seeing a stream of kamas propaganda be pared 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 intentionbased analysis. And it

is the intention that a military commander had when ordering a strike, when targeting a particular area. um subject to that proportionality analysis. That is what masses. And so the only reasonable um inference is is critical to make sure that uh the crime

of crimes, genocide is treated with that appropriate threshold. And there has to be uh a real indication that um you know this conduct occurred because of that intention uh to target a group um and and to target them ultimately for for

annihilation. that that's it, you know, the purpose of of that qualifier that is developed through case law.

I 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. Um if if we were to look at the

casualty counts in World War II there it's astounding how many French civilians were killed on D-Day. Um, so I I really like can you talk about the this this misunderstood idea of disproportionality uh that that and and also to Israel's

care in you you touched on that in in terms of conducting this sort of urban warfare and how that compares with other other conflicts.

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 um directed the policies in their respective armies, six NATO states, uh

that they came from uh and and frankly their jaws were on the floor um as a result of what they were seeing in terms of the rules of engagement and and Israel's policies and practices and also uh it's fair to say the involvement of

lawyers in the IDF um in so many of these targeting decisions and in the policies that have been developed. Um so proportionality as I mentioned is is that balancing exercise. There is no formula that will give you the answer.

It is um required that the reasonable military commander weigh this up. And so um ultimately it will in great part depend on what military significance you ascribe to a target. um that will affect that balancing exercise and grotesque as

it might sound but but how much civilian or collateral damage is acceptable in pursuit of that target. Um but that means that um you know there many many strikes will be called off and have been called off and we've seen evidence of

that um in situations where uh that proportionality proportionality analysis didn't uh didn't come out with the the right answer. Um that's obviously a lot a lot more complex and nuanced than what we consistently hear in media coverage which um well there are a couple of

variations of this aren't there. Um sometimes you have this suggestion that uh you know any civilian casualty means that action is disproportionate. Um and and that's blatantly patently ridiculous. Um then you have this suggestion that one has to tot up

casualty figures on both sides. Um and you know if if Hamas has killed five um Israelis then the Israelis can kill five of the the Hamas or or Palestinians. I mean that is flatly incorrect but it is also macab. Um it is not how

international law works. But it also that that sort of analysis simply encourages Hamas to continue driving up the civilian death toll. Um and we know that it has been doing this and it has been shooting its own civilians also um

in an attempt to win the propaganda war against Israel. You mentioned that the harrowing images um that people are seeing on Tik Tok that uh I think is is something that 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 with respect to these starving baby pictures horrendous images that would cause any rightthinking 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 you know 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 you know a sibling that is healthy

looking and shot or even the mother that has been holding many of these babies or children you know I 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 the faculties of of reason and and analysis, they all go out of the window and there's this completely understandable human kind of guttal reaction to seeing images of this sort

of distressing na 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 uh indicative of of any violations of

international law by Israel. And that's really important to be clear on the misrepresented statements. So often people are are pulling, you know, they're they're two the Netanyahu's Amalac quote and uh Herzog's collective responsibility quote have been taken um

not only out of context, but what what do they actually say in these cases and and what does that mean in terms of the genocide charge?

Sure. Well, we we actually addressed all of this in detail in submissions to the International Court of Justice in response to what South Africa uh had put down in its memorials. And I thought it was really instructive that South Africa

had misrepresented every single quote um from a member of the war cabinet. Um, and they suggested that these were quotes targeting Palestinians when in fact in the original uh Hebrew and in the original context it was clear that they were

speaking about Hamas, eradicating Hamas or the Amalcch reference in relation to Hamas and and not the Palestinians more broadly. Um, so the fact that the South African legal team had to so manipulate and misrepresent uh these quotes that

they included in their memorials I think is quite instructive. Um but in any event it is not sufficient to demonstrate intention uh that uh there may be some uh members of uh 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 um that have been using um deeply troubling rhetoric in many of these instances. Of course, I think it's appropriate to recognize that

um but that is not reflective of the actions and the conduct um that Israel has taken, which is really a matter of public record um in the way that it has approached targeting Hamas uh in this systematic fashion. And I think it's

really important. I mentioned earlier that this is a an effectsbased analysis, not intention, excuse me, an intention based analysis, not effects based analysis that international humanitarian law is predicated on. The South Africans and and those other, you know,

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 um certain countries that have

been provided with sensitive intelligence by the Israelis that do go to you know the intelligence analysis, the uh decisions on striking uh the proportionality analysis. Um and across across the you know duration of the war at various times they included the UK

government and the US government and at those relevant times um 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 um have been clear in in what their analysis was. And part of the reason for that is because that the measures um Israel

takes are are far greater frankly um than the British or American armies would be prepared to take in similar circumstances. And that has also been endorsed um by those, you know, um members of those armed forces that have

that have been on the ground in Gaza and and and have written about this um including Sir John McCall who I was in Gaza with in 2024 um and who wrote two very powerful pieces when he returned to the UK u

talking about you know what he'd experienced and and the rules of engagement that that Israel was had developed and was deploying um that were frankly unheard of amongst western moral law-abiding armies. Now, part of uh the equation is that other armies have not

really been presented with the sorts of challenges um that the IDF has faced in Gaza and um John Spencer has written um you know in great cl with great clarity and and in great detail about this. uh the tactics that Hamas have deployed uh

throughout this conflict um have sought to frustrate Israel's ability to target them by their use of human shields or even human sacrifices um by embedding themselves in in um civilian infrastructure and by creating this propaganda war to pressure Israel's

allies uh to pressure Israel to cease its lawful self-defense. Um and in the face of you know all of that um what we have seen is is this you know unprecedented um action and so you can misquote political leaders in Israel as much as

you like. Uh but the proof of the pudding is in um the eating uh and is in you know the the the statistics. Um there are lots of fake casualty figures that are floating around. I fully appreciate that. Um and we have done

analysis uh on the basis of uh even Hamas fake casualty statistics um throughout this war and you know certainly that the back of the envelope analysis uh which I see has been endorsed in fact by many other commentators and data scientists and

statisticians we're looking at a casualty ratio um at times of 1.5 to1. So that's um 1.5 um uh civilians to every one combatant.

Um, now it's varied, it's fluctuated, but just taking that as as an example and and this is all caveed with uh 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 indic it's 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 was to

you know taking into account armed conflicts around the world in urban areas was a very disturbing 9 to1 nine civilians to every one combatant in Iraq and Afghanistan the figures that the Americans um the American health authorities uh put out were 5:1 and 3:1

1.5 to 1 or even if we were to go up you know as high as 3:1 is still you know 1.5 to1 is unprecedented ed 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 to Israel's efforts to to keeping civilians in the Gaza Strip safe. And so in that respect um you know the these really pathetic attempts to twist um problematic rhetoric uh to

butress um this you know outrageous false claim um of of genocide or even more broadly of of war crimes uh in Gaza is is 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. Um the uh rules of engagement that I that I

indicated earlier, but also the the conduct, the code of conduct um and the ethical uh code and the purity of arms that the IDF instills in in its soldiers um in you know the first week of basic training that is focused on protecting

life wherever possible. And I think the uh effect of that is evident when one looks at um these projected casualty ratios which as I say are frankly unprecedented in a in a in a positive way in order to support these genocide uh

charges. There have been open efforts to weaken the standard um from uh what is it from Brazil and Chile uh the making it a fluid concept of of intent. There was a story uh recently in the Skeptic magazine where Daniel

Bernstein went through the the genocide claims and a pretty solid debunking. He he makes the point that the 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.

I mean is do you think that's part of the actual endgame? I would 100% agree with that and and it's reflective um of of what I said at the start of our conversation which is that this is not just Israel's problem.

um this I 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 um 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 uh civilization is able to defend itself from terrorism. any terrorist that seeks to drive up civilian casualties um either its own civilians or or those

on the other side is is going to make it impossible um to to target them. And this is not what the laws of armed conflict say. And we've had this similar um you know extremely troubling approach with respect to um 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. Um, I mean that should be extremely troubling and is not a reflection of of what international law uh says mostly because uh this is a

continuation of an armed conflict that it's clear that Israel and Iran have certainly been involved in. Um, arguably America also, but in any event, there's no issue with America coming uh to Israel's assistance as an ally in this

respect um and assisting it in that vein with this war of self-defense. Um, but of course I I've seen to the contrary a New York Times journalist um 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 uh the level of that that we are we're seeing with respect to um you know how international law is is being presented and and that strikes me frankly also as the wokeization of

international law. Um and the moment you have these concepts gaining traction, I think two things happen. One is um I would absolutely agree with this notion that it 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 if the strikes by Israel and the US on Iran are in some world considered to be illegal, what's what's the point of international law? And that's extremely dangerous because when international law loses credibility and loses its its its, you know, force, then

a great deal, I think, of the international rules-based order is at risk. You've talked about institutional capture, the the United Nations, the ICJ, the ICC, Amnesty, Human Rights Watch. Um what what does that actually mean for uh liberal democracies?

Well, um this is a process that has been ongoing, I'd say, for decades. And and actually the example that you gave of of attempts to rewrite the definition of genocide um are are very very relevant here. this as an example, you know, in

the Amnesty International report alleging genocide, they do this. They seek to rewrite the rules and um they advocate for an amendment to how genocide is defined because even they recognize that even on their false facts, they can't make the threshold

that we discussed um earlier. Uh and so in fact in the Amnesty International report that they're surprisingly perhaps pretty open and honest about the fact that they are um manipulating uh the very definition of genocide in in order

to try and make it stick here. Um but what we have seen is that there's a process at work. Um the uh NOS's like Amnesty will put these allegations into their reports. Um, 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 Hungas propaganda, they stick it into their report, and they circulate it, and it gets picked up um at the UN Human Rights Council, by other NOS's.

Um, 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 uh you know of of of disinformation laundering even um is is complete and and that process has been at play for for some time. How is it or why is it that these organizations have been so

captured? Um well I think there's a multifaceted approach there and it it um it's a bit of a perfect storm because we can see the academy the international legal academy in particular um being part of that capture uh and there is a

back and forth from the academy to these NOS's to international courts and tribunals um and one feeds off of the other um so frankly when you know Medi Hazan and others have 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 medie 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 the 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 um you know even when I'm on the BBC and I'm

I'm explaining chapter and verse of these things. It it's preposterous. they can't possibly they can't even process it uh because it's so contrary to you know the 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 have totally lost credibility and so far as human rights watch is concerned. I mean even their founder has lamented um how

they have been you know my words hijacked but essentially become an organization that is obsessively focused with Israel um and and frankly with liabling the Jewish state.

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 you know does it ever work? Do these arguments ever work? Do you ever get through to

people? is do you think people have actually changed their mind after they're so indoctrinated?

Um, it varies and it depends and often it it's not the anchor that I'm seeking to convince.

Um, and and unfortunately often it's it's the anchor that that might not come out looking great um if if they are sticking to, you know, the dogma um in in the face of um the evidence that I'm seeking to put forward. Uh but yeah,

you've got to pick your battles for sure. I mean, I was speaking to another BBC journalist um and I have to say it was I felt like I was making progress in the conversation. Um when we were discussing starvation and I was talking

about quite a few of the reports that we have put out um that deal with uh the false uh allegations and the inaccuracies in um the reports from the IPC from the famine review committee that were projecting starvation that

never materialized and and why that was. And you know while I was going through the detail um 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 Kat website, it was as

though I had called his mother a 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. Um but there are others watching often not in that particular conversation unfortunately uh but certainly when one um you know goes on the news or does interviews or lectures or podcasts or webinars um there are many others that need this information

and need to see that exchange and that debate and and I'm now um enthusiastically pursuing you know opportunities to to come and debate at US universities and and and engage with members of faculty there in order to reach um 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 and 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 in all of this reporting that is coming out of the

region because you know for one reason or another those people covering this issue are self censoring they are not uh reporting the facts the reality because of a fear of what internationally prescribed terrorist organizations Hamas included will do either to them or their

colleagues operating elsewhere in the region you know 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 you know 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 these people are coming for your way of

life and you better wise up. you better understand what it is that is is facing Israel and you western civilization and you better become alive to these manipulations um 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 you know all of us as individuals um very very uh problematically 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.

I do hope so. Thank you, Ben. Great to be with you. 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 liel, the ICC arrest warrants, the Brazil Chile Biz 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 Housedorf 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, Tik Tok, 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.