Transcript [00:04] Hey everyone, I want to play you a uh an [00:07] excerpt of a debate. The debate is [00:09] between the international lawyer from uh [00:12] from the UK, Natasha Hdorf, a great [00:14] defender of Israel, and she's debating [00:16] the deputy foreign minister of Norway, [00:19] and the this is just an excerpt of a of [00:21] a podcast that they were on. And what [00:24] they're arguing about is the whole issue [00:26] of Judea and Samaria, known as the West [00:28] Bank, and whether or not Israel's [00:29] presence there is an illegal occupation [00:32] and whether the settlements, the Israeli [00:34] towns that are built there are illegal. [00:36] That's what the argument is about. It's [00:38] a pretty, you know, welltrodden [00:40] argument. You probably heard a lot of [00:41] the arguments, but I I want to play this [00:44] clip because the the way that the [00:46] Norwegian deputy foreign minister makes [00:47] the anti-Israel argument, it really [00:49] gives you a window into how they think. [00:52] And Natasha does a great job of exposing [00:55] the flaws in those in those arguments [00:58] and I want to unpack some of them [00:59] because there's a little bit of like [01:01] legal mumbo jumbo in there that I want [01:02] to unpack, but I also want to add my own [01:04] two cents to this whole debate, to this [01:07] whole conversation and make us smarter [01:09] about how to handle this issue when we [01:11] encounter it ourselves. So, let's go [01:13] ahead and take a look at the clip. [01:16] >> This as a temporary occupation, it seems [01:18] that you think that this is Israeli [01:19] territory. You think that Israel what [01:22] international law says the same [01:23] international law this is not a minority [01:25] position this is a minority of a [01:28] minority position one thing some [01:30] scholars will say that uh the west bank [01:33] and Gaza are are occupied um but the [01:36] occupation is legal under the Geneva [01:37] convention because state can in the in [01:40] the interim can occupy another state's [01:42] territory fine some will say that [01:44] >> what other scholars may argue is [01:45] irrelevant to the discussion [01:47] >> if you're one of the first one um I am [01:50] encountering are saying that this [01:52] territory belongs to Israel [01:56] >> a number of security council resolutions [01:57] a number of general assembly resolution [02:00] >> there's no support in jurist prudence by [02:02] the international court of justice is [02:04] not a position that is tenable [02:07] >> okay let's stop right there this is [02:08] worth uh discussing because this is the [02:11] move that Kravik is going to make over [02:13] and over in this conversation and once [02:15] you see it you can't unsee it now he [02:18] notice he doesn't say that Natasha's [02:20] reading of international law is [02:21] incorrect. He his argument is that it's [02:25] a minority of a minority position and [02:27] it's not tenable and nobody holds this [02:29] position. Okay, this is not a legal [02:31] rebuttal. Notice it's just like it's [02:33] like a headcount. It's wrong. Your [02:35] position is wrong because no one else [02:37] agrees with you. And here's the thing. [02:39] Even that headcount argument isn't as [02:41] lopsided as as he's implying. In [02:43] November of 2019, the State Department [02:46] through Secretary of State Mike Pompeo [02:49] formally declared that the establishment [02:51] of Israeli civilian settlements in the [02:53] West Bank is not inconsistent with [02:56] international law. Okay, that's not like [02:59] a a blog post and he this wasn't in a uh [03:02] in an interview that he just sort of [03:03] threw it out there. This was the [03:04] official position of the US State [03:06] Department. It was also the state the [03:08] position of Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan [03:10] in 1981 said, "Quote," I disagreed when [03:13] the previous administration referred to [03:15] them as illegal. They're not illegal. [03:17] Referring to settlements, James Baker [03:20] under George HW Bush said said flatly [03:23] that calling settlements illegal is not [03:26] our policy. And he wasn't a friend of [03:28] Israel. So, [03:31] um, we're not talking about just, you [03:33] know, just the pro-Israel camp is is [03:35] claiming this. We're talking about a [03:36] genuine decadesl long dispute among [03:39] western democracies and he's this guy is [03:42] pretending that this is the first time [03:43] he's heard this argument. Now [03:46] what about the international court of [03:48] justice which Kravik mentions here. He [03:50] says you know you know they say that [03:52] it's you know the international court of [03:53] justice says they're illegal. Now that [03:55] sounds like an appeal to authority. You [03:57] know the international court of justice [03:58] we've talked about them before in some [03:59] other videos. They've got a great name. [04:01] Sounds very like important. [04:03] International Court of Justice, right? [04:05] you know, you if you give yourself a big [04:06] a name that sounds authoritative, what's [04:09] the problem? Uh that they issued this [04:11] advisory opinion in 2024. That's what [04:14] he's talking about. And that's exactly [04:15] it. It's an advisory opinion. It's not [04:18] binding in any way. It's not enforceable [04:20] in any way. In fact, the International [04:22] Court of Justice is only binding on [04:25] states that agreed to be part of the [04:27] International Court of Justice. It's [04:28] like a private club. Uh, and that's the [04:31] only jurisdiction they have is on the [04:34] people who who who joined it. And Israel [04:37] never joined it. The United States never [04:39] joined it. Neither did Russia. Neither [04:42] did China. [04:45] So this International Court of Justice, [04:47] the ICJ said that that it's illegal [04:50] doesn't carry the legal weight that it [04:52] sounds like it carries. It's more of a [04:54] rhetorical point. Now, second, this is [04:56] this is the this is this is a really [04:59] important point about the ICJ. The for a [05:02] former president of the ICJ, a guy by [05:04] the name of Steven, made the opposite [05:07] argument years before this advisory [05:09] opinion existed. He said that a state [05:12] acting in self-defense is entitled to [05:16] seize and hold territory when necessary [05:19] for its own security. [05:22] If you're acting in self-defense and you [05:24] seize territory from another from [05:26] another nation, you're allowed to do [05:28] that if it's necessary for your own [05:31] security and can require security [05:33] guarantees as a condition of giving it [05:34] back. Like what Israel is doing in [05:36] Lebanon right now, right? People will [05:37] say that Israel's illegally in Lebanon. [05:39] No. Is this is this is international [05:42] law. If you if it's required for your [05:44] own security to seize territory of [05:45] another nation and to demand security [05:48] guarantees, verifiable ones before you [05:50] giving it back, that's legal. [05:53] Okay, [05:55] that's also the International Court of [05:57] Justice opinion. But that's but it's [05:58] actually not just an opinion. That was [05:59] just the former president of the ICJ [06:01] said that that's international law. That [06:03] is actually the law. So when this guy [06:05] says that her position is not tenable, [06:07] that Israel's there legally, what he [06:09] really means is it's not popular because [06:11] that's what he said. Because he says [06:12] it's not tenable and then just starts [06:14] listing all the people who disagree. All [06:16] right, let's go back to the interview. [06:19] >> Deputy Minister, you do appreciate that [06:22] the UN doesn't create states. The UN [06:24] doesn't give states territory. The UN [06:27] doesn't [06:28] >> The UN doesn't create states. [06:30] >> Is that your position? [06:32] >> Of course, it doesn't create states. The [06:33] UN doesn't have any power of that [06:35] nature. [06:36] >> The Security Council can't talk about [06:37] sovereignty. [06:39] >> Well, certainly we've not had a single [06:40] Security Council resolution here with [06:42] any binding effect. These are political [06:44] declarations under chapter six of [06:47] >> I think this is a very important point. [06:48] Are just interject briefly. Are you [06:50] saying that the that the Security [06:52] Council of the UN cannot create [06:54] international legal obligations? [06:58] Okay, this is a great moment to pause on [07:00] because Kravik uh does something here [07:02] that's very effective on camera, but [07:05] it's actually very weak once you slow it [07:07] down and realize what he did. He [07:09] restates Natasha's careful, precise [07:12] claim as extreme. [07:16] When she says the United Nations can't [07:19] control, can't create states, he goes, [07:21] "What? They can't create states? What do [07:22] you mean?" [07:24] But then he does he does a classic straw [07:27] man thing. What's a straw man argument? [07:29] Where you claim that your opponent said [07:32] something that they didn't actually say. [07:34] But the thing that you're claiming that [07:35] they said is much easier to refute. So [07:38] you make it seem like they claimed [07:40] something and then you refute it. So [07:41] what did he do here? Let's go back to [07:43] what he said. [07:44] She said the UN cannot create states. [07:49] And he says, "Are you saying the [07:51] Security Council of the UN cannot create [07:53] international legal obligations?" [07:58] Right? Now, she never said that. [08:02] She never said that the Security Council [08:04] can't create binding obligations. She [08:05] said correctly that it can it can only [08:08] do that under a very narrow set of [08:10] powers and that it has never invoked [08:12] those powers against Israel. That [08:14] distinction, that's the whole ballgame [08:16] in these debates. Let me spell it out [08:19] because most people watching this have [08:20] never had it explained to them. The UN [08:22] charter gives the Security Council, just [08:26] the Security Council, two very different [08:28] modes of operating. Chapter 6, which you [08:31] just heard Natasha refer to, covers the [08:33] peaceful settlement of disputes. It [08:36] makes recommendations, it calls for [08:38] negotiations, and it makes political [08:40] statements. And then there's chapter [08:42] seven, which covers actual enforcement. [08:45] And that means sanctions, binding [08:48] mandates, and that's the stuff that [08:50] creates real legal obligations, right? [08:52] Like the resolutions against Saddam [08:54] Hussein's Iraq after the invasion of [08:56] Kuwait, okay? or um let's take this one [09:00] for example, resolution 242, which is [09:02] the foundational resolution after 1967 [09:06] about Judea and Samaria, about the quote [09:08] unquote West Bank, which says that uh [09:11] that Israel should withdraw from [09:15] some of the territories. Okay, that was [09:17] passed under chapter six, meaning that [09:19] it's meant to be a framework for [09:21] negotiation. It's not meant to be a [09:24] legally binding command. Does that make [09:28] sense? This is an important point [09:31] and it was specifically done that way. [09:33] Meaning that it's not binding. It's just [09:35] a a a recommendation as a framework for [09:38] a negotiation. So it does not anywhere [09:41] in its text say that Israel has to [09:43] withdraw from all of that territory. It [09:45] just says from territories. And that [09:47] word the word all the territories was [09:50] actually proposed by the Arabs and the [09:52] Soviets, but it was rejected. Okay, [09:54] that's a whole issue that happened back [09:55] then. Meaning there's no contrary to [09:58] popular belief, there is no binding UN [10:01] Security Council resolution that demands [10:03] that Israel withdraw from those [10:05] territories and makes it illegal for [10:06] them to be there. Okay? There is no such [10:08] resolution. And as for the General [10:10] Assembly of the UN, which isn't even the [10:12] Security Council, that's the body that [10:14] produces most of these lopsided [10:16] resolutions that people cite. Its [10:18] resolutions are by design not binding on [10:21] anybody. They're just recommendations. [10:23] There's 193 countries that can vote for [10:26] something in the general assembly and it [10:27] doesn't create a legal obligation on [10:29] anybody on any country that it's aimed [10:31] at. Okay, this is literally how the UN [10:34] charter is structured. So when Natasha [10:36] says that these are political [10:38] declarations, she's using the accurate [10:40] legal term and he's trying to take this [10:43] guy Kravik is trying to say that these [10:45] that these declar any declaration by the [10:47] UN or the security council is [10:49] automatically binding. So he then flips [10:52] that around and says, "Are you saying [10:53] that the Security Council can never bind [10:55] anyone?" He's not really correcting her. [10:58] He's just dodging the distinction that [11:00] she pointed out that there was nothing [11:02] binding ever passed. There was no [11:05] article 7 binding resolution ever passed [11:07] that made any obligation whatsoever on [11:09] Israel regarding these territories. [11:12] That's the point. Okay, so let's keep [11:15] going here. [11:17] >> I didn't say that. There's a very narrow [11:20] power for them to do so under chapter 7 [11:22] in very narrow circumstances. [11:25] >> They've never done that in relation to [11:26] Israel. That's to be sure. What you're [11:29] referring to, and this comes to the crux [11:30] of the matter, a political resolutions [11:33] uh and political rhetoric and bluster. I [11:35] mean quite apart from the fact that the [11:38] advisory opinion um of 2024 is not [11:40] legally binding, it's also woeful in its [11:44] application of the law and the facts and [11:46] the absence of proper factf finding [11:47] there renders the conclusions that it [11:49] reaches or be them not binding um rather [11:53] unhelpful in this respect. What I'm [11:55] talking about is a return to actual [11:57] international law. And what I'm really [11:58] concerned about is that in addition to [12:02] these misrepresentations of [12:03] international law, we're getting a [12:04] rewriting of history. the notion that [12:05] there was a Palestinian state, that it [12:07] had its land taken away, that it would [12:09] recover that territory. This is a very [12:12] basic misrepresentation [12:14] of the historical narrative, let alone [12:17] um the legal uh frameworks that [12:19] therefore apply. And so, if you're [12:21] getting the first one wrong, one doesn't [12:23] have much hope on the proper application [12:25] of the latter, that the combination or [12:27] the say the comparison with Ukraine here [12:30] um is pretty stark. And the fact that um [12:33] and you it's not just you of course [12:35] deputy minister I I don't want to make [12:36] this overly personal but the fact that [12:38] there are uh even lawyers out there that [12:40] would seek to make that argument that on [12:42] the one hand um they would say Ukraine [12:45] has sovereign title uh to Crimea and on [12:48] the other say that Israel has no [12:50] sovereign title nor claim uh to these [12:53] disputed territories in particular East [12:55] Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria is worse [12:58] than double standards. It is a [13:00] mislication of international law in the [13:02] extreme which I would argue renders the [13:05] international legal order itself at [13:07] threat because you know if everybody [13:10] says is how we're now judging [13:12] international legal situations the [13:14] international legal order ultimately [13:16] loses credibility. [13:19] >> Okay. So there's two things happening [13:21] here that we have to talk about. First, [13:23] she's underlining exactly this chapter [13:25] 6, chapter 7 point we just covered and [13:27] adding the specific fact that the 2024 [13:30] ICJ advisory opinion is just an advisory [13:32] opinion and that's worth repeating. [13:35] Okay. [13:36] Um, [13:39] an advisory opinion is a legal analysis. [13:41] Okay, no one's bound by it. The second [13:43] thing is, and this is the line I [13:44] actually want you to remember from the [13:45] whole video, she just laid out the [13:47] Crimea comparison. [13:49] And we have to understand what she's [13:51] talking about. She's not saying, quote, [13:54] Israel should be denied rights the same [13:57] way Russia's denied rights in Crimea or [13:59] anything like that. Okay? She's what [14:00] she's saying is this. She's saying the [14:02] world agrees that Ukraine holds [14:05] sovereign legal title to Crimea. Okay? [14:07] Everyone agrees on that. Russia has [14:09] moved troops in there. They've moved [14:11] people in there. They staged a sham [14:14] referendum, maybe. I don't know if it [14:16] was sham or not. And the world still [14:18] refuses to recognize Russian sovereignty [14:20] over that land. Why? Because occupation [14:23] and settlement do not are are are not [14:26] recognized. If you occupy someone else's [14:28] territory and you move people into it, [14:30] that's not a way to gain legal title. So [14:33] Ukraine's claim survives whatever Russia [14:36] does. So her question is, if that [14:38] principle is true for Ukraine, why is it [14:40] why doesn't it apply to Israel? Israel's [14:42] legal title to Judea and Samaria and [14:45] East Jerusalem rests on the same kind of [14:47] paper trail that gives Ukraine its claim [14:50] to Crimea. [14:52] The Balffor Declaration recognizing a [14:54] Jewish national home, which actually [14:56] wasn't binding on the world. So let's go [14:57] to you have the San Remo resolution the [15:00] League of Nations mandate for Palestine [15:02] approved by 52 governments in 1922 which [15:05] explicitly incorporated the the the idea [15:10] of the Balffor Declaration and [15:12] instructed Britain. It gave Britain [15:14] legal authority to govern that territory [15:17] with the purpose of facilitating Jewish [15:20] settlement in that land. Okay, that was [15:22] that was an internationally recognized [15:24] legal uh instrument. [15:28] Okay, [15:30] so so that's what she's saying. She's [15:32] saying that Israel has this legal claim [15:35] to the land, [15:38] but you know, more importantly, there's [15:40] no prior sovereign in that territory. [15:44] Who did Israel take the land from? We'll [15:46] get into that more in a bit. Let's play [15:47] another clip of this. [15:50] >> Yeah. Yeah. [15:51] >> Well, can I just briefly intervene and [15:53] say I think that the fact that you're [15:55] referring to these areas as Judea and [15:57] Samaria sort of gives away the game. You [15:58] think that this this belongs to Israel? [16:00] You think that this is a place where [16:03] Israel can can or Israelis can settle uh [16:06] based on their own will. Again, that's a [16:09] position taken by no serious government. [16:12] In fact, I can't beyond Israel. Um I [16:14] don't think that there is a single [16:16] government who's taking this position. [16:17] But, [16:18] >> okay, this is this one is is so [16:21] revealing and it's and it's revealing [16:24] not for the reason that Kravik thinks [16:25] it's revealing. Look, notice what he's [16:27] doing. He's not disputing any facts [16:29] here. He's treating the name Judea and [16:32] Samaria as though it itself was an [16:34] argument, as if using it, that Natasha [16:36] using it just shows how illegitimate [16:38] what she's saying is. But, you know, as [16:41] though he's treating it as though the [16:43] term Judea and Samaria is like a a [16:45] Jewish Zionist marketing term, [16:50] excuse me, [16:54] that we invented after 1967. [16:57] But what he doesn't realize is that this [16:59] is the name that was given to that area, [17:01] to the areas of Judea and Samaria. They [17:03] were called Judea and Samaria for 3,000 [17:05] years. [17:06] Besides being referred to that way in [17:08] the Bible, that's it's it's what the [17:11] British referred to it during the [17:13] mandate period when the when the UN [17:16] adopted the the uh partition plan to [17:20] divide up the land and create a Jewish [17:22] homeland and an Arab land. On those [17:24] documents, it refers to this area as [17:27] Judea and Samaria. You know why? Because [17:29] there was no other term for them. West [17:31] Bank is a is the newer term. That's the [17:34] brand new term that dates to 1950 when [17:37] Jordan illegally enexed the territory [17:40] and needed a name for it that wouldn't [17:42] recall the Jewish origins of it. You [17:45] can't claim that it's not Jewish and [17:47] call it Judea. So the Jordanians made up [17:50] this term West Bank in 1950 [17:53] to call it the West Bank of the Jordan [17:55] River that would connect it more to [17:56] Jordan. The only two countries on earth [17:58] that recognized Jordan's sovereignty [18:01] there were Britain and Pakistan. [18:03] So here's the irony. Kravik is saying [18:05] that using the original term that was [18:07] always used in all international [18:09] documents for centuries for this region [18:13] gives away the game and is illegitimate. [18:16] But insisting on the 1950 Jordanian term [18:20] and the Jordanians illegally occupied [18:22] that territory according to everybody [18:24] except Pakistan and the UK. He's saying [18:27] that's the right term. [18:29] Okay. And then and then and then he [18:32] bring and then he comes back to the same [18:33] argument he made at the beginning in the [18:35] first clip which is no serious [18:36] government agrees with you right it's [18:38] the same headcount argument I just point [18:41] out that the country you know you know [18:44] the country actually living with the [18:46] consequences of this dispute uh whose [18:49] whose Supreme Court has ruled on [18:50] individual cases all the time it this is [18:53] we use this term right we use the term [18:55] Judea and Samaria whether or not uh [18:57] other governments adopt Israel's name [18:59] for its own contest tested territory is [19:01] irrelevant. Uh but yeah uh so let's uh [19:05] let's keep moving. [19:08] >> Be that as it may uh I think what's [19:10] important for for me and for us is to [19:12] just state unequivocally that our [19:14] position is aligned with most [19:17] governments align with uh the [19:19] international court of justice aligned [19:21] with almost all decisions taken by [19:23] various international entities that [19:25] these are illegal settlements and they [19:27] should be um rebuffed. they should not [19:29] be recognized by uh sovereign states. So [19:32] we will certainly not recognize these as [19:35] settlers uh belonging to Israel. In [19:37] fact, we will do we will do the [19:38] opposite. We will do everything we can [19:40] to ensure that they will not thrive, [19:42] that they are undermined and that [19:44] Palestine can control their own [19:45] territory just as Israel can control its [19:48] territory. This is our international law [19:50] and that's shared by most respond to [19:51] this. But I just want to add one more [19:53] point. Just a question. But before you [19:55] do, [19:55] >> I just add one more point and then and [19:57] then I'll I'll turn the floor over to [19:59] either Henrik or Natasha, whoever wants [20:00] to take it forward. Um I um if you even [20:04] if you were to apply your own logic that [20:07] this is in fact Israeli [20:10] territory that Israel has sovereignty [20:12] over these territories over the West [20:14] Bank, Gaza and eastern Jerusalem, I [20:17] think even then obviously we don't agree [20:19] with this. No country does. But even if [20:21] you were to apply that logic, the way in [20:24] which Palestinians are treated is goes [20:28] against all of the basic tenants of [20:30] international law. There they have no [20:33] right to vote. They have no right to [20:36] protect them for basic human rights, no [20:38] right to uh to uh to uh uh they have a [20:41] distinctly separate system um under [20:44] their criminal code. um you know Israel [20:49] was said if Israel was serious about [20:50] this [20:52] >> that look this is one territory we're [20:54] going to govern this as there's one [20:55] state [20:56] >> obviously you'd see a different [20:57] treatment given that Israel is claiming [20:59] itself to be a democracy uh that aligns [21:02] itself with international legal [21:03] obligations and and human rights. So [21:06] either you are resorting to uh the law [21:08] of uh occupation implicitly admitting [21:11] that this is an occupation which has to [21:14] at some point um uh uh stop or you're [21:17] saying that no there's no occupation [21:19] this is just Israel sovereign territory [21:22] and we will um we will ex um we will [21:26] control this as we control other parts [21:28] of Israeli territory obviously then [21:31] grant all individuals on that territory [21:33] the same rights as we grant other [21:35] individuals. [21:36] But you're you're sort of doing both. [21:38] You're saying on the one hand that it's [21:39] occupied and you're saying on the on the [21:41] other hand that it's not [21:42] >> occupied. [21:45] >> Okay. So that's the trap question, [21:47] right? Um and uh I want to flag it now. [21:51] Uh because Natasha's actual answer comes [21:54] in the next clip. But here's what he's [21:56] doing here. He wants he wants to box [21:59] Natasha in, right? Either this is [22:01] occupied, in which case Israel is [22:03] implicitly admitting the occupation has [22:05] to end, or it's simply sovereign Israeli [22:07] territory in which Israel should be [22:09] extending full citizenship and voting [22:10] rights to everyone living there. You [22:13] can't have it both ways. It's a very [22:14] clever question, but it also assumes [22:15] something that isn't true, which is that [22:17] occupied and fully enex sovereign [22:19] territory are the only two [22:21] possibilities, and they're not. And uh [22:23] and now we're gonna you will see how [22:26] well we'll see how Natasha responds. [22:27] Here we go. [22:28] >> Bye. [22:29] No, forgive me. Now you're putting words [22:31] in my mouth. There's a very simple [22:32] answer uh to the conundrum that you are [22:34] struggling with and that's the Oslo [22:35] Accords. Because since the 1990s, there [22:38] has been a very clear administrative [22:40] framework whereby these territories have [22:42] been administered whereby Palestinians [22:44] have self-determination under the [22:46] Palestinian Authority in the Palestinian [22:49] autonomy in areas A and B. and and [22:52] these, you know, bizarre notions and [22:54] broad sweeping allegations of the way [22:56] that Palestinians are treated are simply [22:59] uh incompatible with the facts. I'm just [23:02] looking here at u measures uh in East [23:05] Jerusalem that the ICJ uh claimed was [23:08] creating an inhospitable environment for [23:10] Palestinians. But according to a [23:12] Palestinian news agency poll, 93% of [23:16] Arab residents of East Jerusalem [23:17] preferred a continuation of Israeli rule [23:20] in the United [23:22] Central Bureau of Statistics. 86% of [23:26] Arab residents of Jerusalem are [23:27] satisfied with their lives. That's also [23:29] consistent with the movements of people. [23:32] I very simply referred to a poll by a [23:34] Palestinian news agency that found that [23:37] 93% of Arab residents of East Jerusalem [23:40] prefer a continuation of Israeli rule. [23:42] Also a survey by Israel Central Pure [23:44] Statistics that 86% of Arab residents of [23:47] East Jerusalem are satisfied with their [23:49] lives. that is simply inconsistent with [23:51] the broad brush sweeping statements that [23:53] you have made and before that quotation [23:56] um I explained that the answer to the [23:59] conundrum that you are struggling with [24:01] is the Oslo Accords. I don't understand [24:04] why you, Norway, many other states would [24:07] see fit to throw that international [24:08] agreement out of the window. Article 17 [24:11] of Oslo 2 expressly excluded Palestinian [24:16] jurisdiction uh from these territories. [24:18] it specifically in relation to the trade [24:21] aspects of this which I still hope we'll [24:22] have time to come on to uh talked about [24:25] the customs union in which Israel [24:28] administers external customs uh the [24:30] border of the entire envelope. So the [24:33] fact of the matter is that Oslo itself [24:36] recognized Israeli administration in the [24:38] areas in which these businesses are [24:40] operating. See, because what they're [24:42] talking about is this proposed boycott [24:44] of the of of the Norwegian government [24:46] and the Norwegian government and other [24:48] European governments about boycotting [24:51] products from Judea and Samaria. And [24:53] what she's saying is, well, the Oslo [24:56] Accords themselves give Israel, you [24:59] know, they they say that that Israel [25:01] administers are the areas that are is [25:04] under Israeli control and specifically [25:06] controls trade. So you're basically [25:08] saying that the Oslo Accords, you're [25:09] throwing out the Oslo Accords. That's [25:11] what she's arguing here. Now, since the [25:13] 1990s, let me explain this all. Since [25:15] the 1990s, Judea and Samaria, aka the [25:18] West Bank, has been divided into areas [25:20] A, B, and C. Okay, that's big part of [25:23] the Oslo Accords. Area A is under full [25:25] Palestinian authority, civil and [25:27] security control. Area B is under [25:29] Palestinian civil control with joint [25:31] security arrangements. and area C which [25:33] is about a which is about 60% of the [25:35] land by area but a very small fraction [25:38] in terms of Palestinian Arab population [25:40] remains under full Israeli [25:42] administration mostly because it's where [25:43] the settlements the Jewish settlements [25:45] and strategic points sit. The result is [25:47] that roughly 98% of the Arab population [25:50] in the West Bank and 100% of it in Gaza [25:54] before 2005 when they lost an election, [25:57] they live under Palestinian or 2006. [26:00] They live under Palestinian authority [26:02] civil administration, not Israeli [26:03] government. And article 17 of the Oslo [26:06] Accords, which she cites, explicitly [26:08] hands Israel jurisdiction over exactly [26:11] the trade questions that this debate is [26:14] supposed to be about. This whole debate [26:15] is the what the debate is really about [26:17] is about this whole issue of why [26:20] European nations are now going are [26:22] boycotting products from [26:25] Jewish areas of Judea and Samaria. Okay. [26:29] So again, this is an agreement. He's [26:31] basic she's basically saying, look, [26:33] there was an agreement that was agreed [26:34] to between the Palestinians and the [26:36] Israelis and it it gives, [26:40] you know, it gives control over area C [26:42] to Israelis that they're allowed to have [26:44] businesses there. They're allowed to do [26:45] things. Why are you boycotting it? Are [26:46] you boycotting the Oslo Accords? It's an [26:48] interesting it's an interesting response [26:50] that she has here. And [26:53] um so his his Kravik's trap question [26:57] only works if you pretend that the last [26:59] 30 years of negotiated Palestinian [27:02] self-government didn't happen. [27:05] Right? That's that's what he's that's [27:08] the uh problem with his argument. Now a [27:10] quick note before we move on. I want to [27:11] be careful here on the specific polling [27:13] numbers she cites. 93% 86%. [27:17] Um it's very it's it's very interesting. [27:20] They do hold up. Uh but um but precision [27:25] matters and and we're going to see some [27:27] other some other numbers later on. Okay, [27:29] here we go. Let's play the the next [27:32] clip. [27:33] It's an important side point of course [27:35] that everything you've discussed up [27:36] until now is entirely academic when we [27:39] actually come to discuss the parameters [27:41] of the trade ban because you're talking [27:42] about private businesses operating in [27:44] these territories [27:46] with Norwegian to Israeli trade. You've [27:49] covered so many areas. I know we're [27:51] short on time. Yes. [27:52] >> Do you think do you think most [27:54] Palestinians on the West Bank and in [27:55] Gaza are satisfied with their lives? [27:58] >> Israel doesn't govern them. those that [28:00] Israel does [28:00] >> Israel doesn't govern the West Bank. [28:03] >> I I explained to you those in East [28:05] Jerusalem that Israel has given [28:08] residency and there's an option for them [28:09] to apply also for citizenship. That was [28:11] what this poll referred to. I just need [28:13] this to be clarified if I could because [28:15] I [28:15] >> I think again [28:17] >> most countries who take a different pos [28:19] or not countries because I I don't think [28:21] that there are that many countries in [28:23] fact there are zero countries that that [28:24] I can think of who take a different [28:26] position on us in terms of the legality [28:28] of the settlements but there are there [28:31] are some scholars not very many but [28:32] there are some and they'll typically say [28:35] that the occupation is legal there might [28:39] be some problems in terms of how it's [28:41] implemented there they'll grant that [28:43] there is settler violence and that maybe [28:44] there's a lack of accountability to the [28:46] discussion. I'm just trying to p I just [28:48] want to push you on this so I get [28:49] clarity and I think this is important [28:51] also for the viewers and listeners. [28:53] >> Are you saying that there is a an [28:56] occupation but the occupation is legal? [28:59] Are you saying that there is no [29:01] occupation? [29:02] >> I've said from the very beginning of [29:03] this that the framework of occupation is [29:05] entirely inapplicable where territory [29:07] has there's no there's no occations. [29:10] Okay. [29:12] Okay, this is a very strong point by her [29:14] because [29:16] the term occupation means that you've [29:18] taken territory from a different [29:19] sovereign entity. [29:22] Okay, Israel took Judea and Samaria from [29:25] Jordan who doesn't even still have a [29:29] claim to it and was illegally occupying [29:32] it themselves. [29:34] And before that, it was under the League [29:36] of Nations mandate that was given to the [29:38] British. And before that it was under [29:40] the Ottoman Empire that doesn't exist [29:42] anymore for for whatever is 400 500 [29:47] years 400 years sorry. So [29:52] that's what she means when she says the [29:54] term occupation is not even applicable [29:56] here. But look at the slight of hand [29:59] here. Natasha made a specific claim [30:01] about the population that Arab residents [30:03] of East Jerusalem, [30:06] okay, who actually live under Israeli [30:08] law have the option to apply for [30:11] citizenship and are happy with their [30:13] lives? And he immediately swaps in a [30:15] completely different population and [30:17] says, "Do you think that the [30:18] Palestinians in the West Bank are happy [30:19] with their lives?" And then she says, [30:21] "Well, Israel doesn't govern them." [30:23] That's the whole point of Oslo. Israel [30:26] doesn't govern them. Second, um, he he [30:30] says, are you saying there's an [30:31] occupation, but it's legal or there's no [30:33] or there's no there's no occupation. [30:36] Okay, so as I just said, it's a [30:38] occupation is a legal category and that [30:40] legal category doesn't actually apply [30:42] here. Okay, so here's the let's go to [30:45] the closing argument here or the end of [30:47] this what we're watching. [30:49] >> It doesn't work. All right. So I I just [30:51] want to say for the record and this is [30:53] important for the viewers and listeners. [30:55] This is not a position which is taken [30:58] seriously international. There is no [31:00] government taking this position. There [31:02] is no international court who has ever [31:05] pronounced anything analogous to what [31:07] just you were just saying. [31:08] >> I also made that clear when I said [31:10] >> very deep insight into how the law works [31:12] is not shared by anyone. [31:14] >> There's a difference between [31:15] >> certainly not the Norwegian government. [31:17] We will take the position. Natasha has [31:18] to respond to that [31:20] >> are legal. They are a a an impediment to [31:23] the two-state solution and we will do [31:25] everything we can to ensure that they [31:28] are not given legitimacy and that they [31:30] are pushed back on. But having said that [31:33] and this is important for me also we are [31:36] not supportive of a boycott of Israel. I [31:39] know that some have discussed [31:41] internationally that there should be [31:42] some sort of u trade ban uh against [31:45] Israel that we shouldn't allow our [31:47] companies and our enterprises and [31:49] individuals to to trade with Israelis. [31:51] That is not the position of the [31:53] Norwegian government. We're not [31:54] supporting that at all. In fact, we want [31:56] to have robust relations with Israel. I [31:59] myself visited Israel multiple times. Um [32:02] we have historically a wonderful [32:04] relationship with Israel. [32:05] >> Natasha has to respond Andreas to that. [32:08] Um [32:10] Natasha about that. [32:11] >> I'm sorry. We're just back to this um [32:13] you know fallback position of everybody [32:15] says everybody says it's not [32:17] international law. Um it is not the am I [32:21] not it is not a reflection of what [32:24] international law really says here. And [32:26] we see that on the basis that in every [32:28] other situation of real occupation as [32:31] envisaged by the fourth Geneva [32:33] Convention and real transfer of [32:35] individuals uh under article 496 in [32:38] western Zahara in uh Cambodia and [32:41] Vietnam in um northern Cyprus uh [32:44] certainly in Crimea uh in abcasia in [32:47] relation to to Russian uh activities. In [32:50] all of these instances this argument is [32:53] never put forward. So you cannot advance [32:55] a credible analysis on international law [32:57] when it only applies to the one Jewish [32:59] state. [33:00] >> You're not [33:03] okay. [33:06] So let's uh look, let's wrap this up. [33:09] She's [33:11] look at the at the list that she gives [33:12] you. She talks about Cyprus and you know [33:14] other places, but there's a lot of [33:16] disputed territories in the world, [33:17] places like Kashmir and Tibet. And none [33:20] of them get treated by the international [33:21] community the way Judea and Samaria [33:23] does. Look, Turkish forces have occupied [33:26] illegally occupied northern Cypress [33:28] since 1974 with an unrecognized [33:30] breakaway government installed there and [33:32] they've moved their citizens in, which [33:34] is exactly what classic occupation is. [33:36] You take someone else's land and you [33:38] move your people in. There's no annual [33:40] UN sessions devoted to condemning [33:43] Turkeykey's occupation of Cypress. [33:44] There's no worldwide boycott of Turkey [33:46] over their occupation of Cypress. [33:48] There's no debate over Turkish uh [33:50] settlements in northern Cyprus and [33:53] whether or not they're illegal, [33:57] right? [33:59] And this is this goes back to the Crimea [34:01] issue which he already raised before. [34:03] Ukraine holds a clean internationally [34:05] recognized legal title to Crimea and no [34:07] to Crimea. Nobody disputes that Russia [34:10] has moved troops in. They've moved [34:11] settlers in [34:14] and the world doesn't recognize it. [34:16] Okay. the occupation [34:18] by Russia, [34:21] right, doesn't change Crimea's claim. So [34:25] apply that same principle to Israel. [34:27] Israel's legal title to Judea and [34:29] Samaria rests on on the San Remo [34:32] resolution, the League of Nations [34:34] mandate approved in 1922. [34:39] And unlike Crimea, and then there were [34:41] wars and it was taken illegally by [34:43] Jordan, etc. But unlike Crimea, there [34:45] wasn't even a legitimate rival sovereign [34:48] standing in Israel's way to begin with. [34:50] As I said, there was no previous there's [34:52] no previous owner. [34:55] Jordan's hold on the West Bank was [34:56] itself illegal. [34:59] So [35:01] look, that's the whole thing. In the [35:03] end, Kravik never answers the question [35:05] that Natasha puts to him where she says, [35:07] "No government agrees with you." You [35:09] know, he just says, "No government [35:10] agrees with you or everyone agrees." and [35:12] she's saying that's not an argument. [35:14] Consensus just tells you what's popular. [35:16] It doesn't tell you what's correct. [35:19] Okay, that's that's her point. What [35:22] actually determines whether a legal [35:24] claim holds up is the actual text of the [35:26] law. And uh and on every issue here, [35:29] Natasha is doing uh the one thing that [35:32] he never does, which is citing the [35:34] actual law. So, here's what I want you [35:35] to take away from this. Andreas Kravik [35:37] is not a stupid man. I don't think he's [35:38] being dishonest. I think he genuinely [35:40] believes what he's saying u because it's [35:43] what nearly every foreign ministry in [35:44] the west has been saying for like [35:46] whatever 30 years and this is what makes [35:48] the clip so useful. It's it's not a [35:51] caricature of the anti-Israel argument. [35:52] It is the argument delivered by a [35:55] credentialed government official clearly [35:57] and confidently. And when you slow it [36:00] down and you check each claim against [36:01] the sources, the claim that there's UN [36:03] binding resolutions when there are not. [36:05] the claim that the fourth Geneva [36:07] Convention [36:09] um makes this illegal, which it does [36:11] not. What it says in the actual Oslo [36:13] Accords that were agreed to by all the [36:15] parties, [36:16] what the polling of Arabs in East [36:19] Jerusalem is. [36:22] So Natasha is bringing facts and [36:24] documentation and he's bringing [36:27] everyone, [36:28] you know, there's a consensus against [36:30] you. Anyway, that's the that's what I [36:33] wanted to share with you. I know this [36:34] one went kind of long. I hope you found [36:35] it interesting. Please like, subscribe, [36:37] share. Drop me a comment. Let me know [36:38] what you thought.
