What the world is getting wrong on Israel: An interview with Natasha Hausdorff
Article content
More notably, the expert in international law has popularized one such law, Uti possidetis juris. It states that newly formed sovereign countries should retain the borders that their preceding area had before their independence. Therefore, at the time Israel declared itself a state, Mandatory Palestine – which included what today is known as Israel, Judea and Samaria (a.k.a. the West Bank) and Gaza – would by law be legal territorial boundaries of Israel. It is a lynchpin argument, she believes, against the charges of 'illegal occupation' and 'illegal settlements.'
Article content
Article content
Article content
She regularly briefs politicians and international organizations and has spoken at parliaments across Europe.
Article content
Article content
After her law degree at Oxford University, she clerked for the president of the Supreme Court of Israel in Jerusalem in 2016. In 2018, Hausdorff was a Fellow at Columbia Law School in the National Security Law Program.
Article content
Dave Gordon interviewed Hausdorff prior to a talk she delivered at Toronto's Nova Exhibition on June 12, hosted by StandWithUs Canada.
Article content
I can fully appreciate that Israel's official stance is constrained by diplomatic operations and political pressures. It's a rule that applies automatically, whatever Israel says about the situation.
Article content
There are other examples of Israel not standing on ceremony, as far as international law is concerned. One of those relates to Egypt's obligation to open the border to Palestinian civilians, fleeing civil disorder in Gaza. That's in accordance with Egypt's obligation under the Organization of African Unity Convention on (governing the specific aspect of) Refugees, which it signed in 1980.
Article content
Article content
This is a convention that has a much broader definition of refugee than the international convention. Nobody has been calling on Egypt to open the border from October 2023. But Israel can't pressure (that), because Egypt threatened to tear up the peace agreement with Israel.
Article content
If the BBC were reporting from North Korea, there would be some indication somewhere that we are not free to report without censorship — controlled in what we're able to say by the regime. I have not seen a single piece of reporting from Gaza that has acknowledged that: nothing comes out of the Gaza Strip that is not controlled by Hamas.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Global News
19 hours ago
- Global News
Carney backs Ukraine role in peace talks in calls with Zelenskyy, Starmer
Prime Minister Mark Carney spoke with the leaders of Ukraine and Britain on Monday amid a flurry of international diplomatic efforts to shore up support for Ukraine ahead of negotiations between the U.S. and Russia aimed toward a peace deal. Carney's conversations came as U.S. President Donald Trump previewed his approach to Friday's planned summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska, and suggested Kyiv and Moscow will both have to cede land to end the three-and-a-half-year war in Ukraine. A readout from the Prime Minister's Office of Carney's call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy — who has yet to be invited to the upcoming talks — said the two leaders 'agreed on the categorical imperatives of ending Russia's barbaric war' to achieve a lasting peace. 'The two leaders underscored that decisions on the future of Ukraine must be made by Ukrainians, that international borders cannot be changed by force, that diplomatic engagement must be reinforced by continued pressure on Russia to end its aggression, and the need for robust and credible security to enable Ukraine to defend its territorial integrity and sovereignty,' the readout said. Story continues below advertisement It added Carney and Zelenskyy 'welcomed the leadership of President Trump and the United States in working toward securing peace in Ukraine,' but also noted Carney endorsed a joint statement by European leaders on Saturday that emphasized Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity must be protected. 'Prime Minister Carney affirmed Canada's steadfast support for Ukraine,' the readout said, pointing to billions of dollars in newly-committed military aid and last week's move to lower the price cap on Russian oil alongside European partners. 2:09 Zelenskyy rejects territorial concessions as Trump and Putin plan Alaska summit Carney and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer also spoke on Monday and welcomed diplomatic efforts toward peace 'and agreed that this must be built with Ukraine — not imposed upon it,' according to a readout from Downing Street. The PMO has yet to provide its own readout of the call with Starmer. Get breaking National news For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen. Sign up for breaking National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy Ukraine's European allies have been pushing for Ukraine's involvement in U.S. talks with Russia over fears that a negotiated deal could otherwise favour Moscow. Story continues below advertisement European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said on Monday that 'transatlantic unity, support to Ukraine and pressure on Russia' were needed to end the war and 'prevent future Russian aggression in Europe.' Trump told reporters on Monday that his upcoming talks with Putin will be 'really a feel-out meeting,' adding he would know 'probably in the first two minutes' whether progress was possible toward ending the war. Trump also said 'there'll be some land swapping going on' that will be 'for the good of Ukraine,' but also acknowledged there will be 'some bad stuff for both' sides. 'It's good and there's bad, but it's very complex because you have lines that are very uneven and there'll be some swapping,' he said. 'Russia's occupied a big portion of Ukraine. They've occupied some very prime territory. We're going to try and get some of that territory back for Ukraine.' 2:38 Zelenskyy rejects negotiations that exclude Kyiv as Trump-Putin meeting set for Alaska Putin is expected to be unwavering in his demands to keep all the territory his forces now occupy and to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, with the long-term aim of returning it to Moscow's sphere of influence. Story continues below advertisement Zelenskyy has strongly condemned suggestions that Ukraine should have to give up any territory seized by Russia, noting Ukraine's territorial borders are enshrined in the country's constitution and any changes will need to be approved democratically by the Ukrainian people. Trump said Monday he's 'a little bit bothered' by that. He also said that, after his meeting with Putin, 'The next meeting will be with Zelenskyy and Putin' but it could also be a meeting with 'Putin and Zelenskyy and me.' Zelenskyy warned on Monday that any concessions to Russia would not persuade it to stop fighting and more pressure was needed on the Kremlin, which he noted was showing no signs it was preparing to wind down its military operations. 'Russia refuses to stop the killings, and therefore must not receive any rewards or benefits,' he wrote on X. 'Concessions do not persuade a killer.' German Chancellor Friedrich Merz invited Zelenskyy, Trump and a number of European leaders to meetings on Wednesday, his office said Monday. Other invitees included U.S. Vice-President JD Vance, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte and the leaders of France, Italy, Britain, Finland and Poland. Carney's office and the office of Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand have not responded to questions about whether Canada has been invited to take part. Story continues below advertisement —With files from the Canadian Press, The Associated Press and Reuters
Vancouver Sun
21 hours ago
- Vancouver Sun
'No more TikTok teaching': Jewish advocacy group calls for Ontario classrooms to be free of identity politics
A Jewish advocacy group released a report on Monday with recommendations to depoliticize Ontario classrooms. It called on the ministry of education to build a curriculum based on achievement, rather than identity. The report from Jewish Educators and Families Association of Canada (JEFA) comes after recent data from a survey commissioned by the Office of the Special Envoy on Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combatting Antisemitism found that Ontario students were targeted by hundreds of antisemitic incidents . Speaking in downtown Toronto on Monday, JEFA co-founder Tamara Gottlieb said that Ontario's education system has lost its morals and its academic purpose, adding that this isn't 'only a Jewish concern.' Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. The same policies that have made Jewish students feel unsafe have also created inhospitable environments for Hindu, Christian and Asian students, she said, adding that the human rights department at the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) trains staff on 'who qualifies as an oppressor,' singling out Christians. The TDSB did not immediately respond to National Post's request for comment. 'We discovered a system that has replaced reading, writing and arithmetic with politicized content, union-driven equity agendas and identity based labeling,' she said. 'When we hear the word equity, we think it means equality. But it doesn't. Equity is defined this way in school board policies as guaranteed outcome — not guaranteed opportunity.' According to the TDSB's own multi-year strategic plan , equity is its 'guiding principle.' The JEFA report, entitled End the crisis in education: A plan for equal rights and real learning, says that antisemitism is a 'flashing warning sign' of the education system's dysfunction. Antisemitism is not simply occurring in Ontario schools; it's being tolerated, said Gottlieb. Amid the myriad concerns, Gottlieb said that Ontario school board trustees, teachers and parents are 'muzzled' because code of conduct policies are 'weaponized' against them. Trustees are intended to give 'parents and local communities a meaningful voice,' per the report, but over time, they have become 'increasingly centralized and bureaucratic.' 'They are actually precluded from speaking publicly about any concerns in the system and precluded from speaking privately with parents who come to them,' said Gottlieb. As a solution, the report says there should be a requirement of governance qualifications for school board leadership. Similarly, Gottlieb said that teachers 'can't actually speak up publicly when they have concerns…but at the same time, they have absolute professional discretion in their classes to use whatever resources they want.' One example given by Gottlieb included a Grade 6 teacher who was part of the TDSB — the largest school board in Canada and one of 72 in Ontario — wearing a keffiyeh to class right after October 7, when Hamas terrorists murdered 1,200 Israelis, sparking an ongoing war in the Middle East. The teacher showed students videos from Al Jazeera — a publication that has a 'close connection' with Hamas, a Tel Aviv District Court found last year — about the Nakba as content for mandatory Holocaust education and had a Free Palestine poster with a QR code to donate funds to an 'ambiguous charity.' (The Nakba refers to the displacement of Arab Palestinians during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, per the Times of Israel .) That teacher faced no consequences. The province should step in to enforce rules that affect thousands of students, said Gottlieb, like clarifying the ambiguity surrounding what constitutes a religious or political garment. Teachers donning keffiyehs at school has become a point of contention among anti-Israel groups and the Jewish community in Canada. Keffiyehs are now considered by many a symbol 'associated with the annihilation of a people,' said Gottlieb, adding that they have been 'codified' as cultural attire 'with zero historical basis.' 'The minister has to step in and unify these policies,' she said, 'so that your kid has the same rights in one board than they will in another board.' Gottlieb also pushed for centralized resources for teachers and called for an end to 'TikTok teaching.' 'Yes, the Ontario government has the Trillium List of approved textbooks , but it's 2025. When's the last time any of your kids came home with a textbook? They don't. Textbooks aren't being used, so having an approved list of textbooks is moot,' said Gottlieb. 'What we need are all teaching or learning resources in the classroom to be centrally made by the ministry, to be approved, for teachers to be trained on how to use those materials, and then for them to exclusively use those materials.' The JEFA report recommends that teachers be licensed directly by the ministry of education, rather than the current model, where teachers are licensed by the Ontario College of Teachers (OCT). It also includes recommendations for the entire education system, from the ministry of education to the school boards, the OCT, faculties of education (responsible for training future teachers) and the teachers' union. 'JEFA's message is simple. Let schools be schools. Let's teach the basics,' she said. The group has written to Ontario's Minister of Education Paul Calandra, urging him to read the report and make changes. In an emailed statement to National Post on Monday, the minister's spokesperson Justine Teplycky said: 'Discrimination and racism in all its forms have no place in our classrooms. Parents expect schools to keep divisive politics out of the classroom and instead focus on what matters most: teaching students reading, writing, and math skills to prepare them for good-paying jobs and lifelong success.' Teplycky confirmed that the minister has received the report and will review it. 'If Ontario can find the courage to make these changes, our schools can once again be places where every child feels safe and where the measure of success is achievement, not ideology,' said Gottlieb. 'We need equal rights for all students. Jewish students can't afford to wait.' Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here .
National Post
a day ago
- National Post
Jamie Sarkonak: This is what reconciliation looks like — the end of property rights
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Proposed marine terminal on the South Arm of the Fraser River where jet fuel would arrive before being put into a 13 km pipeline to Vancouver International Airport (YVR). Storyboard image from public consultation meeting, 2012. Photo by Vancouver Airport Fuel Facilities Corporation On Thursday, a B.C. superior court judge gave at least half a billion dollars' worth of government land in an 800-acre zone in southeast Richmond to the Cowichan First Nation, and lit a fuse that could lead to the obliteration of private landowners' legal title in the area. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS Enjoy the latest local, national and international news. Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events. Unlimited online access to National Post. National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. Support local journalism. SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE ARTICLES Enjoy the latest local, national and international news. Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events. Unlimited online access to National Post. National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. Support local journalism. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors This case of 'land back' in action (Cowichan Tribes v. Canada) casts a shadow over the country's property system. It jeopardizes the default means of owning land in Canada — the estate in fee simple, where owners have exclusive rights to sell land — wherever Aboriginal title is found to exist. Aboriginal title is the right of an Indigenous group to use, control and reap benefits from the land. It's granted to claimant groups that can prove they are descended from the sole occupants of an area at the time the British asserted sovereignty. Unlike regular fee simple ownership, it's enshrined in Section 35 of the 1982 Constitution and impossible to sell to anyone but the Crown. This newsletter tackles hot topics with boldness, verve and wit. (Subscriber-exclusive edition on Fridays) By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again The Cowichan claim covered the site of their summer village near the mouth of the Fraser River, where they had established continuous, exclusive seasonal occupancy dating back to European contact in the 1790s. In 1846, the British Crown asserted sovereignty over that land and the rest of what would become B.C. The following years would see property being surveyed and auctioned off to public and private buyers — but not the Cowichan summer village. Instead, it was set aside in 1860 and continued to be used as a settlement for the group. Colonial officials considered the possibility of making it into a reserve, and took initial steps to do so. After B.C. joined Canada in 1871, however, the summer village was carved into parcels and sold over the years until 1914. Purchasers included private parties (including 'well-placed men' in the colony) and even the municipality itself; some of the land purchased privately would eventually be sold back to the Crown. Today, about half of these lots are held by public bodies, with the other half falling under private ownership. A map shows the Cowichan title lands outlined in black. (B.C. Supreme Court) Photo by B.C. Supreme Court The question before the B.C. Supreme Court was whether the taking of those village lands was legal to begin with. Justice Barbara Young (a Harper appointee, by the way) concluded it was not. Young found that in the Crown's Cowichan-related dealings, it was obligated to act in the group's best interest; in divvying up the village land in the 1870s, the Crown's duty to consult was triggered, even though the concept wouldn't be invented for another century or so. It also violated a law that required reserve lands to be given to the federal government, not sold. Though no actual reserve had been created, the judge found that colonial officials' half-intentions turned the summer village into a 'provisional reserve,' warranting a transfer to federal hands. So, since the initial parcelling and selling of those lands has been deemed illegal by the court, the legal foundation for their ownership by private and government entities is now gone. For the government, which was left holding the bag more than a century after the land's initial sale, the consequences are severe. Crown fee simple title on strategic port lands along the Fraser has mostly been declared 'defective and invalid' because that's what the Cowichan asked the court to do. Not all properties in this category were listed on B.C.'s assessment database, but those I could find were valued at $546,485,000 in total. This advertisement has not loaded yet. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Government properties that were voided by the Cowichan Tribes decision are highlighted in cyan. (LTSA/ParcelMap BC) Photo by LTSA/ParcelMap BC Private parties fared better: the Cowichan did not ask the court to nullify these interests, and so they continue to exist. The judge insisted that Aboriginal title and regular property ownership — fee simple title — can co-exist in the same place. But she also ruled that the Crown now owes a duty to the Cowichan to mysteriously 'reconcile' their interests with those of private owners through negotiation 'in a manner consistent with the honour of the Crown.' In other words, the Crown is expected to have the back of the Indigenous group in its tug-of-war with private landowners. 'Fee simple interests and the exercise of associated rights will go unaffected in practice when Aboriginal title is recognized over that land, unless or until the Aboriginal title holder successfully takes remedial action in respect of the fee simple interests,' she wrote. 'Or, preferably, until the matter is resolved through negotiation between the Aboriginal title-holding group and the Crown.' They will be unaffected until they are affected. Wonderful. The judge further suggested that a resolution could follow from lawsuits, buyouts or simply being left as is. A New Brunswick court wrestling with this same issue last year was more blunt about what this looks like in reality: it proposed that judges could order the Crown to expropriate private land and give it to the Aboriginal titleholders. Those landowners can't feel too good right now. On the west side of the Cowichan title area, these include a golf course and various acreage homes with orchards out back. One of these, a nine-acre blueberry farm, is currently listed for $5.3 million. To the east is an industrial zone home to Canadian Tire and Wayfair warehouses. Canadian Tire's Brampton distribution centre was sold last year for $258 million. It's possible this decision will remain a narrow piece of guidance to help parse out the modern fate of a limited number of small former village sites in B.C.; it could be overturned on appeal. On the other hand, were it to be affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada, it would apply everywhere, potentially affecting property ownership wherever there are unresolved land claims: primarily B.C., which is covered in them, and New Brunswick, where just about the entire province is being claimed by the Wolastoqey and Mi'kmaq. Theoretically, much of the country is safe because it sits on land where Indigenous groups gave up their Aboriginal title by signing the numbered land secession treaties. As for bigger-picture implications, well, the court just threw the reliability of the property system into flux. Gone is the notion of buying real estate and knowing that it will be yours until you choose to dispose of it. That's not good for investment. When Richmond's lawyers pointed this out, the judge tone-policed them for being inflammatory: 'Richmond's submission that a declaration of Aboriginal title will destroy the land title system and the (Land Title Act), wreak economic havoc and harm every resident in British Columbia is not a reasoned analysis on the evidence. It inflames and incites rather than grapples with the evidence and scope of the claim in this case.' This would be less concerning if courts could resist the urge to constantly push boundaries and bias the decision-making process in favour of Indigenous applicants, but that isn't so. The 1982 Constitution's vaguely worded Section 35 has evolved into a complex framework that holds government officials from two centuries ago to the modern duty-to-consult standard. In cases like these, the conduct of colonial officials is often scrutinized with meticulous, uncharitable detail. Where their actions were ambiguous, they might be massaged into something they're not: here, the judge's creative stretching of 'reserve' resulted in a land grab. Elsewhere, she interpreted the promise of a colonial official to treat a Cowichan murder suspect fairly in his trial as a broad nation-to-nation gesture triggering constitutional responsibility. The Cowichan, on the other hand, were evaluated on a much different basis. The evidence from the 1820s painted a portrait of a slaving society, feared by the other tribes in the region. One anthropologist testified to their historic practice of 'cutting heads off, hanging them on the bow of a canoe and holding them up' as a means of intimidation. They would take women and children as slaves from surrounding tribes, on one occasion stealing the daughter of a Musqueam chief. Young, who described the Cowichan as 'fierce' throughout her decision, found that their brutality erected 'psychological barriers' that warded others from their summer village. This helped establish title to the land. Also considered was their mythology and tradition That's the backdrop against which Aboriginal law creeps forward. Today, the uncommitted ponderings of colonial officers are being reinterpreted as full intent, to displace Crown ownership interests in a small patch of Richmond. We could be one court challenge away from the same thing happening to private land. What happens when the courts decide it's time to start pecking away at the legitimacy of the numbered treaties, which protect much of the country from Aboriginal title claims? Ideally, we'd pre-empt this with a national debate about modifying or outright removing Section 35 from the Constitution, which is the reason for this fee simple override. It's now being used to remedy the loss of historic villages to colonial expansion — but if it sets the stage for a private property land grab centuries later, it's gone too far.
