The State of Israel is currently engaged in a fight on the world stage unlike any it has faced in its brief history. As the IDF corners the remnants of Hamas in Rafah, diplomatic pressure is being brought to bear from every quarter to force a cease-fire. And now Israel’s foes have leveraged the international court system to wage “lawfare,” forcing the country to fight on yet another front.
Two world judicial bodies based in the Hague, Netherlands, have made moves against Israel over the past two weeks. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), which is supposed to adjudicate disputes between nations, issued a somewhat ambiguous statement regarding the IDF military incursion into Rafah. Meanwhile, a prosecutor for the International Criminal Court (ICC), which claims jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for crimes against humanity, has issued arrest warrants for Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, charging them as “war criminals” and equating them with the leadership of Hamas.
London barrister Natasha Hausdorff has emerged in British media as a formidable defender of Israel’s legal case and argues that the charges against it are driven purely by political motives. Hausdorff, 34, who clerked for former Israeli High Court president Miriam Naor, and now serves as the legal director for UKLFI (UK Lawyers for Israel) Charitable Trust, is well positioned to analyze the legal challenges Israel faces, having studied and defended Israel’s stance in previous conflicts.She spoke with Mishpacha about Israel’s two court cases and its options.
World media plainly reported that the ICC ordered Israel to immediately halt its military advance in Rafah. But others are saying the court order is actually more ambiguous than that. Which is true?
The ICC cannot order that and it has not done that. The Court does not micromanage conflicts. In fact, the Ugandan vice president of the court, Julia Sebutinde, stated in her dissenting opinion very strongly that the court would be overstepping its role in making a further order, essentially seeking to micromanage Israel’s operations in Gaza at the request of South Africa. South Africa has sought an order from the Court that Israel immediately cease its operation, and it has not been successful in achieving that.
What the Court essentially ordered was that Israel comply with the Genocide Convention and cease any operations in Rafah that may breach its obligations under this convention. Israel has been clear it is continuing to abide by its duties under the Convention.
I think it’s fair to say that the court is acting in unprecedented fashion. It seems to be politically motivated, because it is entertaining these false claims by South Africa. But it has not ordered that Israel stop its operation in Rafah. That’s a misrepresentation of the order.
On what legal basis are Israel’s adversaries claiming that it is committing “genocide” against the Palestinians?
It’s outrageous that they can progress with such a falsehood — not least because they’re accusing the real victims of genocide here of perpetrating the acts that were carried out against them. And I don’t just mean the victims of the genocide in the Holocaust, which gave rise to the very term that is now being deployed against Israel. But I also mean victims of acts of genocide on October 7, which were plainly committed by Hamas, with the requisite intention to destroy a group, in whole or in part.
