Natasha Hausdorff head to head with Norway’s Deputy Foreign Minister on Henrik Beckheim’s podcast

Video Loads Below

August 28, 2026 | 7 Comments »

Leave a Reply

7 Comments / 7 Comments

  2. French Appeals Court Holds Israeli Settlement Activity Does Not Violate International Law
    May 3, 2013 – NEW YORK – In a major legal decision that the media has studiously ignored, a French Court of Appeals ruled last week that construction of a light rail system in the Israeli-controlled West Bank by a French company does not violate international law. In doing so, the court sided with many of the arguments Israel has long made in defense of the legality of settlements. Indeed, the decision is a major refutation of the common refrain that “everyone agrees” that construction in the West Bank violates international law.

    Lawfare Project Fellow Eugene Kontorovich, a professor at Northwestern University School of Law, explained the significance of the decision:

    The Court held that only the Government of Israel, and not private parties, can violate the relevant provisions of the Geneva Conventions. The arguments that Israeli communities in the West Bank violate international law start with Art. 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which provides that “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” The provision was also relied on heavily by the Palestinian plaintiffs in in the lawsuit. The Court ruled that the Geneva Conventions only speaks to and applies to action by the Israeli government (“the Occupying power”), and does not regulate private parties activities in the occupied territory.

    This is an extraordinarily important holding in light of the decades old-debate about the meaning of 49(6) in the context of Israeli civilian migration into the West Bank. It is in direct opposition to the political and international law position on settlements. In the standard narrative, any migration of Israeli Jews past the Green Line, or the expansion of their residences and communities once there, is a war crime. Thus, when private citizens decides to buy or build a house across the Green Line, or even expand an existing one, it is a war crime. Moreover, Israeli citizens who migrate to the West Bank are often said to be guilty of war crimes themselves as aiders-and-abettors. The Versailles decision would seem to reject such a position.

    One clear consequence of the French ruling is that newspapers can no longer say with any pretense of honesty that apart from Israel, “everyone agrees” that settlement construction violates international law.

    https://www.thelawfareproject.org/releases/2018/4/3/french-appeals-court-holds-israeli-settlement-activity-does-not-violate-international-law

  3. Norway’s deputy foreign minister was unwilling to concede valid points and repeated that a number of times. The one that bothered me most was the implication that international law is not what is written down but rather something like popular opinion. If “everybody says that” it must be true, irrelevant of the real international law. In end effect, what he said over and over is that Israeli occupation of Judea and Samaria is, in the popular opinion, illegal. The facts may be different, but Norway doesn’t care about the facts. Since this is his stated opinion, rather than law, he can only hope that Israel will accept it even though it is against the law.
    The facts are: Jordan occupied the regions of Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem and denied the Jews living there the right to continue to live there. When those regions were taken back in 1967, they were taken from Jordan, not some mythical Palestinian state. They could only be given back to Jordan, but before anybody says “Do it!”, the Jordanians relinquished that land to Israel, so that there is no Palestinian component involved here.
    Quite apart from the facts, the Norwegian deputy foreign minister was unpolite, interrupted over and over, and repeated the same false statements over and over too. He actually took the British position of calling for the Two State Solution although that already exists as the UK created it before the state of Israel was agreed on.
    In fact, Jordan is Palestine and attempting to create another state called Palestine should actually be called the Three State Solution.

  4. Trying to support his point that Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria is “illegal”
    the Norwegian imbecile uses the word “obviously”.
    Well, of course to someone who certifies truth by majority or even consensus, it is tautology. According to him if everyone agrees that Earth is flat, then it “obviously” is flat because everyone agrees…

    I feel sorry for Natasha to have to debate such a dullard.

    1

  5. The Norwegian imbecile does not understand that international consensus does not make international low.
    Just like if there was international consensus that 2 + 2 == 5, the actual truth would still remain that 2 + 2 == 4…

    1