NATASHA HAUSDORFF CALLS OUT THE FALSE HOODS AGAINST ISRAEL.SHES MY KINDA WOMAN.

NATASHA HAUSDORFF CALLS OUT THE FALSE HOODS AGAINST ISRAEL.SHES MY KINDA WOMAN.

GODS PROMISED LAND FOR ISRAEL.

And here are the bounderies of the land that Israel will inherit either through war or peace or God in the future. God says its Israels land and only Israels land. They will have every inch God promised them of this land in the future.
Egypt east of the Nile River, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, The southern part of Turkey and the Western Half of Iraq west of the Euphrates. Gen 13:14-15, Psm 105:9,11, Gen 15:18, Exe 23:31, Num 34:1-12, Josh 1:4.ALL THIS LAND ISRAEL WILL DEFINATELY OWN IN THE FUTURE, ITS ISRAELS NOT ISHMAELS LAND.12 TRIBES INHERIT LAND IN THE FUTURE.

Joel 3:2-King James Version (YOU DIVIDE JERUSALEM IN HALF - YOUR POKING GOD IN THE EYE - GOD SAYS AN EYE FOR AN EYE AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH- YOU WANNA DIVIDE JERUSALEM IN HALF -  HALF OF EARTHS POPULATION 4 BILLION DIE ON EARTH.
2 I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land.

ALL MUST WATCH ISRAEL LAND IS ISRAELS ANY THING ELSE IS LIES - INTERNATIONAL LAW
Natasha Hausdorff: This Rule DESTROYS the ‘Israel Is an Occupier’ LIE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91iD2R_nhxo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBllM8M-sko
THE 2 STATE DELUSION
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wrhzDBvhEc

LAWYERS FOR ISRAEL
https://www.uklfi.com/

6 The Principle of Uti Possidetis Juris: How Relevant is it for Issues of Secession? Anne Peters
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198702375.003.0006 - Pages 95–137 Published:June 2014
Abstract-Uti possidetis can potentially transform any type of internal territorial demarcation that has been established in domestic law prior to secession into an international one once secession has succeeded. Currently, those CIS member states which are affected by secessionist attempts are not constituted as federation-type states with internal domestic administrative boundaries but rather as unitary states. Older administrative lines stemming from the pre-independence era cannot be opposed against the currently existing ‘mother’ states if they are not acknowledged in their domestic law as it stands. Neither does uti possidetis apply on the basis of factual control over a territory in the absence of a formal administrative line. The overall conclusion for the CIS problématique is that breakaway territories cannot lawfully rely on uti possidetis for their case. The real issue in the CIS is whether there should be new boundaries, and not where these should run.

Law, Lies, and Justice: An Interview with Natasha Hausdorff on Israel’s Legal Battles

Since October 7th, UK lawyer Natasha Hausdorff has emerged as a prominent advocate for Israel in legal and media circles. As Israel faced serious accusations, including claims of genocide and ethnic cleansing, Natasha has provided strong and articulate defenses against these allegations. Her profile rose significantly when she and Douglas Murray participated in the well-known Munk Debate in May 2024. Their victory in this debate brought Natasha international recognition. Recently, Rabbi Aron White interviewed Natasha to discuss her experiences defending Israel’s position in legal forums.Tell us about your background, and how you came to focus on international law and its application to Israel? I studied law at Oxford with a focus on public international law, and it became apparent to me then that one of the big battles Israel would be facing was in the realm of international law. In 2011, Mahmoud Abbas wrote an op-ed in the New York Times which was his declaration of “lawfare” – internationalizing the conflict, making it a legal matter. I also saw many things in academia, such as when I was a fellow at Columbia University with a focus on cyber security. I saw then the prejudices among the professors that have made Columbia famous in these past few months. I saw in Columbia, and in Oxford, how international law was being applied to Israel compared to how it was applied to other countries. There were clear expectations of how academics were supposed to be. I know many people who wanted to pursue a career in academia but who didn’t subscribe to those assumptions, so they pursued other fields.I also started to see a whole machine being put in place. There were armies of NGOs being set up to put out material that alleged lots of Israeli violations that were factually and legally incorrect, that were feeding into the United Nations system and international bodies like the ICC and ICJ. We are seeing the results of this process in the discourse around this war. The terms that are being thrown around such as war crimes, genocide, targeting civilians, proportionality, provision of humanitarian aid – all of this is underpinned by legal language, which is mostly being deployed against Israel incorrectly. This pseudo-legal language permeates public discourse about Israel. This has now broken into public consciousness, but it has been building in the NGO world and UN world for a long time, so what we see now is in no way a surprise.At the core of the legal profession is the notion of justice, and a professional tradition of integrity. When I see the law being misapplied, I have a professional obligation to stand up against that. That is what I have been doing regarding Israel and international law – both before this war, but with greater intensity since October 7th.Before we talk about your recent activities, I want to go back a few steps. How did we get here? International law played a significant role in the creation of Israel. The goal of the Zionist movement as formulated by Herzl in 1897 was to create a home for the Jewish people “secured under public law,” and the the legal agreements of the Balfour Declaration, San Remo convention and UN partition plan are seen as significant steps in Israel’s creation. Israel was built through international law, so when and why did international law begin to turn against Zionism?It was before my time. Most people date the beginning of this legal war against Israel as the UN Resolution from 1975 that Zionism is racism. However, it occurs to me that there are examples of international law being misapplied even earlier. Before the founding of the state, when the British issued the White Paper limiting Jewish immigration in 1939, it was issued in violation of the terms of the British Mandate. But I would argue that one of the most important examples dates from May 1948, because more or less every single argument that is raised against Israel citing international law misapplies a very significant law about a state’s borders. There is a customary rule in international law called uti possidetis juris, which means when a new state forms, unless there is another resolution, then the new state inherits the preexisting administrative lines of the previous administration. This rule goes back to when South America was achieving independence from the Spanish, and has been used in modern cases like the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Except for when it comes to Israel. When the British Mandate ended, Israel was the only state to be formed in that area. There had been a political proposal at the UN to split into two states, but that had not been accepted. So Israel was the only state to form, and thus by customary law, Israel’s borders would be the administrative lines of the British Mandate – meaning, including Judea, Samaria and Gaza. So then, when Egypt occupied Gaza and Jordan occupied Judea and Samaria, it was occupying Israeli territory, and when Israel liberated those areas in 1967, it cannot be considered an “occupation,” as it was legally already part of Israel. So this basic international law utterly destroys this basic belief that Israel is “occupying” land in those areas.I have spoken to people who have written books on uti possidetis juris, and they are convinced this rule doesn’t apply to Israel, without being able to give any reason. Just to give an example: uti possidetis juris is the reason that Crimea is considered part of Ukraine. Russia invaded Crimea in 2014. If Ukraine pushes Russia out, no one would say Crimea is occupied Russian territory! It’s inexplicable, but international law is thrown out when it applies to the Jewish state. This example undermines every argument that Israel is an “occupier” or a “colonizer.” This is the actual legal position, rather than simplistic soundbites and one-liners. What have you been doing since October 7th? For the last ten years I had volunteered for UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) and I had spoken quite a lot at conferences, but the work is very responsive – helping students or people in the workplace facing antisemitism, fighting BDS resolutions and UN related initiatives, etc. It’s extremely varied, but it always gave me a sense of purpose – if my day job took energy, this work energized me. I am extremely privileged to have found a network of extremely dedicated and capable lawyers who get it and who are committed to combating the racism, antisemitism, and misinformation about international law which is driving a lot of domestic problems. This has been turbocharged over the last 9 months. Many people want to volunteer and expand the team. It is a real privilege to do this, to really be having an effect. After October 7th, everyone felt powerless. Having a platform to push back against the falsehood in the media is extremely rewarding and I feel very lucky. Who knows how long it will continue? Not every broadcaster likes having me on. It is the privilege of being able to have an impact.What’s an example of somewhere where you feel you have made an impact? In April 2024, the previous government of the UK was contemplating an arms embargo on Israel. 600 lawyers wrote a letter to the Prime Minister which was shocking – it got the law wrong and got the ICJ provisional measure wrong. It was just shocking. We needed to put out a response, but I had no expectation of getting a similar level of response. We got 1,300 signatures, including some of a very high caliber. One colleague commented that he had gone through the names and affiliations on both letters, and found it quite instructive on the quality of legal practice. Quite a few signatories, both Jewish and non-Jewish practitioners, also wrote in to make it clear how meaningful this was to them. We were told this letter prevented an arms embargo. It shut down the falsehoods of the previous letter that was putting pressure on the government. At the Business and Trade Committee in the House of Commons, I was called to give evidence, while Lord Sumption spoke for our opponents; he called my position barely arguable. Less than 30 hours later, on Hardtalk, the former chief justice of the ICJ came out and vindicated everything I had said.I felt a compulsion to respond to this letter. The impact it had on preventing an embargo was amazing.What is it actually like debating people like Mehdi Hasan about these topics, in front of an audience and with major exposure on the internet? I’ve not only debated for over 20 years – I was an avid debater in school and university – but I also have been steeped in these issues for over 20 years. That has a tremendous impact, and having right on my side and the facts and the law is a real advantage. It’s never easy, you are dealing with so much misinformation and falsehoods. Our opponents have not been challenged for so long, so they are the “received wisdom.” That is a mountain to climb. But having the truth on my side certainly helps the process. In my profession, it’s crucial to articulate arguments in a way that is as accessible as possible. The other side often relies on incredibly simple soundbites, so when we unpack the complexities of the issues, we must focus on making them easy to understand – clear and accessible, but not overly simplified.Are we fighting a pointless and losing battle? I don’t know if it will be enough, but there’s no question that this battle needs to be fought. My efforts are aimed at joining that fight. For a long time in Israel, there was a sense that we didn’t need to trouble ourselves with what people around the world were saying or feel the need to explain our position. However, more Israelis are waking up to the necessity of stating the obvious. Alan Dershowitz has also mentioned that his generation dropped the ball; they didn’t push back when these lies started, and now terms like ‘occupation’ have become entrenched. I don’t accept that we can’t challenge this. You cannot have an international legal system based on general rules with exceptions made for countries people don’t like. So, either you get rid of a rules-based order, or someone has to speak up and hold their feet to the fire.Standing up in this way is making a difference. In the advisory opinion – not legally binding – of the ICJ, Vice President Sebutinde’s dissent was an honest and comprehensive assessment of the issues the court was asked to consider. She stuck to her principles, even under pressure from the court’s president, who has a biased track record. He was Lebanon’s ambassador to the UN with a track record of anti-Israel statements and should have recused himself, but instead, he’s been driving this agenda. Justice Sebutinde’s dissent is the definition of integrity and proper legal analysis. Pushing back does have results; these issues are being called out. We’re continuing to submit our findings to the ICJ and ICC, highlighting the prosecutor’s use of falsehoods in his request for arrest warrants. We’ve already debunked the myth of starvation as a method of war, and more will follow. It’s painstaking work, requiring a lot of effort, but the results are visible in dissenting opinions and in the efforts of organizations like NGO Monitor and UN Watch. We provide much of the legal input for a broader effort. I’m privileged to fight this fight, not just with UKLFI, but alongside gifted and committed individuals who have dedicated their lives to this cause, even though they could make heaps of money in the commercial sector. How can people do this? This is not for everyone. I speak a lot at universities, and often the things I am saying are the first time they are hearing it, both the students and the academics. To the extent that people feel informed it gives them the confidence to join this fight.Outside of trained lawyers, we also provide resources for everyone. Many people say to me, “I hear all these accusations in the media. I instinctively know that they are wrong, but I don’t know how to respond.” For those things, we have many resources on the UKLFI website.