Key Takeaways:

The ICJ’s January 2024 provisional measures order never found genocide “plausible,” and yet the media’s misrepresentation of that ruling was not incidental; it was the point.
Legal terminology is being misused, and its definitions and standards are being altered to accuse Israel of the worst offenses, because the evidence itself does not sustain the allegations.
The same lawfare machinery being used against Israel is being engineered to be deployed against any Western liberal democracy that fights a non-state actor.

 

The word genocide was coined by Raphael Lemkin, a Jewish lawyer, to give legal language to the Jewish experience of the Holocaust. It was designed to describe the intentional targeting of a group for extermination because of who they are.

Natasha Hausdorff finds it almost too painful to say out loud that this word is now being used against the Jewish state, and that it is being used precisely because of what it means, and what it once meant.

“We see this projection,” she said. “The accusation that Jews are guilty of committing the crimes that were in fact committed against them.”

Hausdorff is a British barrister, legal director of UK Lawyers for Israel, and founder of the Centre for International Rule of Law. Her family has counted back 8 generations of living in Israel, since 1847. She has testified at the UN Human Rights Council, briefed parliaments across Europe and North America, taken apart the ICJ and ICC proceedings line by line, and sat across from Mehdi Hasan, Piers Morgan, and Owen Jones to make arguments that the rest of the media has largely declined to report.

In a conversation with The Honest Take, she walked through the legal machinery behind the genocide allegation, the manipulation of legal terms into libels, and issued a warning: Israel is only the test case.

A Misunderstood Ruling, an Unreported Correction

In January 2024, the International Court of Justice issued provisional measures in the case brought against Israel by South Africa. The headlines read: “ICJ finds genocide plausible.”

That is not what the court said.

“If you read the provisional measures order, the court makes this explicitly clear,” Hausdorff said. “It is there in black and white.”

What the court actually determined, at this very preliminary stage, was whether South Africa’s case fell within the parameters of the Genocide Convention at all — not whether genocide had occurred, not whether it was likely, not even whether it was plausible in any meaningful evidentiary sense. The question was simply: is this a case that makes legal sense under the convention? Since South Africa was alleging genocide, and the convention covers genocide, the answer was procedurally yes.

The distinction is fundamental. The court’s own president, Joan Donoghue, felt compelled to go on BBC’s Hard Talk and correct the record, an act Hausdorff described as unprecedented for a sitting judge. Almost no outlet reported her correction.

Whether the media misrepresentation was intentional or not, the result was the same. Hausdorff recalled exactly when she came to that realization. “My counterpart on a South African broadcaster said something along the lines of, ‘Isn’t it marvelous, now we can finally use Israel and genocide in the same sentence, and nobody can tell us otherwise,’” Hausdorff recounted. “And that’s what it was about. Changing the applicable terminology. Changing the acceptable use of this term.”

The success of that project, she argued, is now almost total. The term genocide appears in mainstream coverage as a descriptor, not an allegation. The correction issued by the judge who wrote the order has been filed away. The headline remains.

What Genocide Actually Requires

The Genocide Convention defines the crime in two parts. The first sets out qualifying acts: killing members of a group, creating conditions that make life impossible. The second, and far more important, is the requirement of specific intent: the intention to destroy an ethnic, national, religious, or racial group in whole or in part, as such.

That final phrase, “as such,” carries the entire legal weight of the definition. It means that people are being targeted not for what they are doing, but for who they are. Because they are members of that group. This is what Lemkin designed the term to capture: the Holocaust, Rwanda, the extermination of the Armenians.

“No one is disputing that innocent Palestinians have been killed in Gaza,” Hausdorff said. “That is, unfortunately, a tragic reality of war. It is the intention aspect that is critical.”

In the context of armed conflict, the laws of war operate on four key principles: military necessity, distinction between civilians and combatants, proportionality, and precaution. Of these, proportionality is, in her words, “the most misrepresented aspect of international law, full stop.” Proportionality does not mean equal casualties. It requires a military commander to weigh anticipated military advantage against anticipated civilian harm — a balancing exercise that takes place before a strike, not after, and that is assessed against what was reasonably foreseeable, not against what happened.

When the intention behind military strikes is to destroy Hamas, a defined military objective, the intent required for a genocide charge is simply absent. “If Israel had the intention to eradicate Palestinians, the methods it would have used would look nothing like the methods it has used,” she said.

She pointed to casualty ratios as an instructive, if not legally determinative, indicator. Based on her analysis of even Hamas casualty figures, the ratio of civilian to combatant deaths in Gaza has been approximately 1.5 to 1 at certain points in the conflict. The United Nations’ own data on urban armed conflicts globally puts the average at nine civilians for every one combatant. In Iraq and Afghanistan, American military operations produced ratios of five-to-one and three-to-one.

“1.5 to 1 is unprecedented in the history of this sort of armed conflict,” she said. “And we’re not even dealing with situations that come close to the challenges that Hamas has deliberately posed to Israel’s efforts to keep civilians safe.”

The ICC and the Inverted Burden of Proof

Before he sought arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan traveled to Cairo in October 2023. At a press conference, he said that Israel would have to prove it was complying with international humanitarian law.

This was not a slip. It was the inversion of the foundational principle of criminal law.

“In your first week of a law course, any student will be taught the burden and standard of proof,” Hausdorff said. “The burden of proof is on the prosecution. That is what was entirely inverted.” Instead of the prosecution proving Israel was guilty, Khan was demanding that Israel prove its innocence.

When Khan’s arrest warrant applications were eventually filed, Hausdorff reviewed the public summary along with UK Lawyers for Israel and submitted a detailed analysis to the court. Her conclusion was categorical.

“Every phrase of every sentence of that document was false.”

The primary charge was deliberate starvation. COGAT (the Israeli military unit responsible for coordinating civilian aid) documented throughout the war the volume of humanitarian assistance entering Gaza. That evidence directly contradicted the charge. Khan’s response, she noted, was to instruct the court to disregard any submissions on accuracy that did not come from him.

There were also fundamental jurisdictional problems that should have ended the proceedings before they began. Israel is not a party to the ICC. The Palestinian Authority is not a recognized state and therefore cannot have joined the Rome Statute. And the court’s own rule of complementarity, which requires that a state be given the opportunity to investigate and prosecute credible allegations before the ICC intervenes, was not applied.

And, not less importantly, the public nature of the proceedings, from press releases to court filings, differed dramatically from other cases that remain behind courtroom doors.

“Every indication is that this is a publicity stunt,” she said. Hausdorff speculated as to why that was allowed to happen. “A court that has had its reputation trashed, that has failed to live up to the lofty aspirations of its founders, seeking to rehabilitate itself by going after the leaders of the only Jewish state.”

Amnesty International and the Circle of Disinformation

Hausdorff gave particular attention to what she described as a cycle of disinformation laundering, a process by which false information circulates through institutions, gaining apparent legitimacy at each stage.

It begins, she explained, with NGO reports. Amnesty International’s report alleging genocide contains a methodology section that states plainly that the organization does not have people on the ground in Gaza and relies instead on what it describes as local government authorities, meaning Hamas. “It’s clear that this is essentially just regurgitated Hamas propaganda,” she said.

That material is then submitted to the UN Human Rights Council, cited by other NGOs, referenced at the General Assembly, and quoted at the ICC or ICJ. Amnesty then points to the international bodies and says: You see, even the ICJ says so. “But they are all regurgitating the same false information.”

She also noted that even Amnesty’s own report, in seeking to support the genocide charge, argued for an amendment to the legal definition of genocide — a tacit acknowledgment that the existing definition, applied to the facts as Amnesty presents them, does not sustain the charge.

“They advocate for an amendment to how genocide is defined, because even they recognize that, even on their false facts, they can’t make the threshold.”

The Warning Beyond Israel

Hausdorff is not, she insisted, primarily a defender of Israel. She describes herself as a defender of international law.

The distinction matters because what she is describing is not, in her analysis, a problem that ends with Israel.

“If this gains traction,” she said, “then the logical consequence is that no Western civilization is able to defend itself from terrorism.”

Any non-state actor that embeds itself in civilian infrastructure, as Hamas has done deliberately and systematically, would be able to immunize itself from military action by ensuring that any response produces civilian casualties. The genocide charge, if it can be made to stick in the absence of specific intent, becomes a weapon available to any group willing to use its own population as a shield.

The simultaneous effort by Brazil, Chile, and Belize to weaken the intent requirement in the Genocide Convention — to make it a “fluid concept,” as she puts it — would accelerate this process. She sees it as part of a coordinated capture of the international legal system that extends from the academy to NGOs to international courts and back, each reinforcing the other.

“These people are coming for your way of life,” she said. “And you better wise up.”

She drew two conclusions for audiences who have no particular stake in Israel and no particular interest in international law. The first: you have been lied to. “Those people covering this issue are self-censoring. They are not reporting the facts, the reality, because of a fear of what internationally proscribed terrorist organizations will do either to them or their colleagues operating elsewhere in the region.” The second: this is not only about Israel. The machinery being built and tested against the Jewish state will eventually be directed at any democracy that tries to defend itself against those who have learned how to exploit it.

“I am not prepared to let that vacuum persist,” she said. The vacuum she means is the one left when no one explains, clearly and without apology, what the law actually says — and what it does not.

She has no intention of letting it.

Found this video interesting? Follow the HonestReporting page on Facebook to catch more videos, and read articles debunking news bias and smears, as well as others explaining Israel’s history, politics, and international affairs. Click here to learn more!