Discussion on Israeli Settlements and Law

The election schedule for the end of October,

with Benjamin Netanyahu's coalition racing to expand control of land in

occupied Palestine and drive out Palestinians before its mandate expires.

That is, according to reporting, at least from The Guardian newspaper.

Let's try and get some answers on this now with Natasha Hausdorff,

who's legal director at UK Lawyers for Israel,

barrister at Six Pump Court Chambers.

Natasha, thanks so much for coming back on the show.

Really appreciate your time this morning.

And if this is the case,

these settlements would surely be illegal, wouldn't they?

Well, that is the misnomer that has to be dealt with head on here.

I mean, this article from The Guardian that you've quoted from is predicated

on that false premise.

It's also replete with other falsehoods.

But this buzzword of

illegal settlements doesn't reflect the realities of the legal position of what

international law says about settlements,

Jewish communities being built in these respective territories,

or indeed what the local administrative law that Israel has applied says either.

It also draws these sweeping generalizations between Judea and Samaria or the West

Bank and Gaza and

the announcement by the defense minister Katz in relation to the military

outposts that have been announced,

which you've just referred to in Gaza,

are not civilian settlements at all.

So lots to unpack here. Sure.

Well, I suppose someone arguing that they are,

do contravene international law might say this.

The UN, the ICJ, the International Court of Justice,

continue to consider the West Bank to be occupied territory.

They argue that Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits an occupying

power from transferring part of its own.

civilian population into occupied territory.

In 2016, the UN

Security Council adopted Resolution 2334, which states that

Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem,

have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation under international law.

And as recently as 2024,

the ICJ issued an advisory opinion reaffirming that Israeli

continued occupation and new settlements are contrary to international law.

So if all of these international organizations,

which literally adjudicate on international law,

are telling us it's illegal, we ought to listen to them, shouldn't we?

Let me deal with those four planks one by one.

The ICJ advisory opinion is not any binding instrument in international law.

It is as valid as the analysis that has gone into it.

And I've spoken on many previous occasions about the problems there. The U N.

Security Council resolution that you've referred to, 2334, also not a binding U N.

instrument, not under international law.

These are political resolutions which have made their way,

to be sure, into other proclamations of the U N.

But that is not international law.

As to the first two points you raised,

in relation to Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention,

this is a massive misrepresentation of what that provision was drafted to prohibit.

It relates to the Nazi practice of forcibly transporting,

ironically here, mostly Jews into occupied

territory in order to take them to concentration camps,

extermination camps, forced labor camps.

That is the forcible transfer of a civilian population. And it is a state transfer.

So that doesn't apply in respect of individuals moving of

their own free will as an expression of their own volition at all.

that analysis simply fails.

And it's good to have the opportunity to drill down into these points.

And I'm very grateful that you've raised them. I'm grateful to you.

I'm grateful to you, Natasha.

I'm grateful to you. Can I just raise one more point?

Because we're just up against it in terms of time.

Can I just finish dealing with the first four points before moving on to the next

one? The first plank that you raised is to call this occupied territory. And that is

certainly the false premise under which all of these actions have been carried out.

You don't think there's any occupied territory in Israel?

But it's not a matter of what I say. Well, it's a matter of fact.

It's a matter of application of international law.

There's very clear international law, customary international law,

that determines the borders of newly emerging states at their moment of being.

Okay, Natasha, if you're rejecting

what these international organizations are saying,

why is it that so many within Israel itself,

dozens from Israel's political and military elite,

including two former prime ministers and former heads of all the security services,

are right now threatening legal action

against their own government over their support for terrorism in the West Bank

and these continued expansion of settlements?

You're conflating two completely separate things.

I'll come on to that announcement, if I may, in due course.

But it's very important to understand, Israel is a democracy.

People can say whatever they like.

Whether it has actual basis in law or facts is irrelevant.

So, there are no limits to settlement, in your view?

There should be no limits to settlement?

No, that's—again, you're putting words in my mouth.

I'm just trying to find a But coming back to the warnings that have been raised,

understandably,

because of the situation that's developing in Judea and Samaria and the West Bank,

that is in relation to what have been called disaffected youth.

They are a serious problem and they need to be dealt with head on,

criminal troublemakers that have been attacking both Israeli police,

Israeli army outposts,

so called settlers, Jewish residents in the area, and Arab Palestinians.

And that criminality is what was being called out,

and the government was being put under more pressure to deal with it.

The defense minister, Israel Akatz, has told Channel 14 that

he felt good seeing the wasteland of rubble that have

replaced Palestinian homes and communities in most of Israeli occupied Gaza.

When we hear statements When we hear statements like that,

do you understand why so many listeners and

viewers will not feel especially But I can understand that you're moving from one

point to the next without any proper Especially assuaged by the assurance.

Any proper ability to drill down into the realities of these or the context.

The context of that

speech was after the 7th of October attacks in Israel's military campaign in Gaza.

That has nothing to do with what you've just raised,

which is with respect to attacks on Israeli civilian communities in Judea and

Samaria and the misrepresentation of this as settler violence. If you look at U N.

statistics, did you know,

Lewis, that if an elementary school or primary school class goes and visits

the ancient site of Shiloh, according to the U N. data, that is settler violence?

Did you know that Israel now controls 65 percent of Gaza,

which is beyond even the 53 percent agreed under the ceasefire by Donald Trump?

So that government is going beyond even what Donald Trump thinks is a good idea.

This is a measure that has just been updated in the last two days.

Because of the Board of Peace's failure to

negotiate the disarmament of Hamas, there have been further We're out of time.

Do you—very simple question to you, Natasha. We're out of time.

Do you believe Do you believe, Natasha,

do you believe that there should be any limits to Israeli settlement in the West

Bank? Yes or no?

I have a serious problem with this idea that Jews should not be permitted

to live in certain areas because they are Jews. And what you've just created No,

no, it's just because they're the homes of

Palestinians. It's nothing to do with the fact they're Jewish. That's absolutely

categorically incorrect. They're someone else's home. It's someone else's home.

That's categorically incorrect. Every single one

of the 34 states These people have lived in the West Bank for generations. No.

This is built on state land.

It is categorically a misrepresentation, Lewis, that you have just suggested,

that anyone has been dispossessed as a result of these proposals.

Even the Peace Now website,

which is one of the biggest attackers of

these proposals Israel hasn't dispossessed anybody in the West Bank.

No, it certainly has not.