This is one of the most amazing performances of someone under fire I’ve ever seen, and even though the video was long for me (45 minutes), I watched the whole thing, mesmerized as well as stunned by how well the “victim” answered questions coolly and eloquently.
In one corner: Natasha Hausdorff, British barrister (lawyer) with an expertise in international law. She’s also Jewish and the legal director of UK Lawyers for Israel. Her credentials are impeccable:
A graduate of Oxford University and Tel Aviv University, Hausdorff practised with the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, and clerked for the chief justice of the Israeli Supreme Court. She was a former fellow at Columbia Law School in the National Security Law Program. She is also the legal director of the NGO UKLFI Charitable Trust.
In all the other corners (it’s a hendecagon, with 11 corners) are the hostile opponents: the members of the UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, chaired by Dame Emily Thornberry. This interview grilling was part of the Committee “conducting an inquiry into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, asking ‘how the UK and its allies can help to achieve a ceasefire and lasting end to the war in Gaza and Lebanon’.”
Remember that the UK government, though nominally supporting Israel, refused to sell arms to the Jewish state. But here, its members are basically asking Hausdorff to defend every action of Israel. And she basically does. The hostility of the committee towards Israel seems ubiquitous (Hausdorff was one of several experts, including Palestinians, but I was unable to find any YouTube videos of Palestinians testifying at this hearing.) What is amazing about Hausdorff is that she not only doesn’t lose her cool despite the clearly anti-Israel inquisitors, but always has the facts at her fingertips. And when she doesn’t know something, she says so.
I highly recommend that you watch this video, if for no other reason that to see a stupendous performance. But you will also hear how someone who’s pro-Israel deals with canards and misconceptions about the war. Or listen to just fifteen minutes.
After watching this, Malgorzata (who called it to my attention) said, “Natasha Hausdorff is a force of nature and a world class treasure.” I agree; Hausdorff is one of my rare heroes.
Yes, I agree most strongly with Malgorzata. Natasha Hausdorff was excellent in last year’s Monk debate and in other video pieces I have seen her in but in this ridiculous display of ignorance and attempts at bullying by Members of Parliament she shines out brilliantly. The one moment I thought some anger flashed from her was when La Thornberry repeatedly said no to her and warned her to be careful of what she said. Even then, Natasha dealt with that unbelievable impertinence very calmly putting the rude woman in her place.
Regarding the Palestinians’ evidence, I wonder whether they were even videoed or was it just that these committee members wanted to flaunt their virtue to their supporters who may well be as antisemitic as they are and so published this video and the one with Jonathan Sacerdoti, the other pro-Israeli testifier.
I am truly in awe of her handling of that whole situation. Does she have a fan club?
Well she’s done her homework (as usual)
Shame that the committee hadn’t done theirs.
That was a commendable performance. I’d love to see Hausdorff debate some of the Hamas sympathizers protesting on college campuses (not that they’d have the intellectual courage to do so).
Unfortunately, Dame Emily Thornberry does not seem like the type of politician to be swayed by the facts and logical arguments so skillfully presented.
I posted the link on Hili yesterday after watching it. I thought Dame Thornberry was suitably impressed by Ms Housdorff and commented to that effect in closing. Most here would have been aware of the points she laid out but the law not so much.
Her closing comments showed class. I don’t think she ended up any more convinced to support Israel.
Natasha Hausdorff is a legend. Articulate and well-informed.
Oh, my. She is amazing. And persuasive!
I just watched the entire video. Facts versus opinion. Natasha knows the legal framework and the operational facts relating to the subject. The panel have newspapers, hearsay and opinions to throw at her. That is my government, I voted for them and I am ashamed of them for being so poorly informed.
The job requirements for an MP do not include being adequately informed. The prime requirement is to be adequately popular.
That’s a good comment on MPs, Barbara. However, I would think that being on that committee that is then going to make a report to the Foreign Office on the issues would require one to be rather more informed and prepared, knowing that you were going to be questioning an expert like Natasha Hausdorff. I’m thinking in particular of the fellow who referenced a speech of Ms Hausdorff’s and she asked which one – and he didn’t know! She’s obviously done her homework and he hadn’t.
Don’t underestimate the strength of hubris + sense of entitlement + wanting to look important (despite meagre talents) + having staff to do all the actual work (like writing reports) + not really giving a crap. I’m sure you can add more.
There are some hard working, well informed MP’s, sadly they did not seem to be availablr for this hearing.
Sure. There are some non-rotten apples in the barrel.
Emily Thornberry = Dolores Umbridge
Not equal. I definitely prefer evil characters to be fictional.
Crikey that Dame Emily is right the public have heard Natasha’s answers and Natasha is completely correct.
The way that woman cuts her off all the time with the dismissive let’s ignore all those words and reframed her question to get an answer that she would approve is just so insulting and disrespectful and enraging. Unbelievable that she is the head of anything.
Poxy words, pesky laws, lets just get on with what we already know is right.
And, at one point, tried to “reframe” Natasha Hausdorff’s answer! Barbara Knox’s comment above is spot on.
Edited to point out this was an answer to Kelcey at no.8
“The way that woman cuts her off all the time . . . .”
This is the only Parliament committee hearing I’ve seen. Is this typical behavior? I’ve been under the (perhaps mis-)apprehension that parliamentarians (and British citizens above a certain age) exhibit a greater civility than that which generally obtains anymore here in “The Indispensable Nation” (Madeleine Albright). Perhaps the MP has been taking deportment/comportment lessons from members of the U.S. Congress, whose irksome philistinish committee hearing behavior is in a class of its own.
It’s infuriating how politicos (and at least some of the media and public) expect a hearing witness to maintain civility and composure but can’t be troubled to hold themselves to that same standard.
I am reminded that Britain not that long ago was the indispensable imperial nation. Such things change, and the process is not pretty. (Although the Habsburg empire did leave us a very pretty ex- imperial capital.)
What a brave, brave woman. The inquisitor, with her “Stop using words to answer my questions,” repostes is Orwellian.
Wow, what a performance!
Over the last few years I have become increasingly ashamed to be British. Successive governments have shown a degree of incompetence and bias that were previously unheard of, culminating in the present government, which clearly and openly hates working class people in this country, alsong with Jews and white people generally, and seeks to present a biased fictional Netflix video as a documentary, using it as an excuse for further repressive laws and further indoctrination of a supine and cowed population.
I long to see people in power who I can respect, and who recognise that their duty is to represent the people…where are they?
Smug Emily Thornberry made a false assertion when she smugly claimed with a quintessential smug expression that Israel has never claimed that “its borders run from the Jordan River to the (Mediterranean) sea”.
In fact, Israel has often asserted its sovereignty over its territory. Its 1948 borders are thoroughly legal, and there have never been any other legal borders. Natasha Hausdorff made a very cogent point about that, when she stressed that nothing that has happened over the past 77 years have changed those borders. This point sailed right over Thornberry’s oblivious head.
I believe that Natasha Hausdorff did not bring up Israel’s assertions of sovereignty over Judea and Samaria, and Gaza because, as she pointed out, she was not testifying as a representative of the Israeli government. I hope that stature changes.
I disagree. It would damage her independence of speech and action if she were a government mouthpiece, and her manifest independence significantly adds to her credibility and impact, IMO.
I am so impressed by Natasha Hausdorff. I have watched quite a few speeches she has made as well as her outstanding performance at the shameful Oxford Union debate. I am British – but live in NZ – in both countries the intellect and behaviour of most of our politicians is so very disappointing and I find myself wondering what do we need to do to attract people to the role of public duty who are of a similar calibre to Natasha – until we sort that out we are, I fear, never going to get out of this doom-hole we are all tumbling into.
She’s deservedly unflappable armed with her supreme grasp of the history and the law pertaining to Israel. What a gem.