Expert rejects legal claims behind London exhibition backlash

Natasha Hausdorff, Legal Director of the UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) Charitable Trust, has challenged allegations that an Israeli real estate exhibition held in London involved unlawful activity, arguing that claims made by politicians and campaign groups are not supported by international law.

The Great Israeli Real Estate Event, which included a conference organized by Arutz Sheva, became the subject of political controversy after more than 100 MPs and peers signed a letter calling for it to be halted. The exhibition, which was originally scheduled to take place at a commercial venue before being relocated to a synagogue in northwest London, was met by large protests and multiple arrests.

The controversy has continued following comments by Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper, who confirmed that the government had asked the Advertising Standards Authority to urgently investigate allegations that properties in Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria were advertised at the event.

Speaking in the House of Commons, Cooper said the government had been clear that businesses should not engage in trade or marketing related to what she described as illegal settlements and that the matter had been raised directly with the Advertising Standards Authority.

The organizers of the event, My Home In Israel, denied the allegations, stating that all exhibitors would provide information only about properties and projects within the Green Line.

However, reports subsequently emerged claiming that brochures advertising properties in Ma’ale Adumim and Givat Ze’ev, as well as neighborhoods in eastern Jerusalem, had been distributed at the exhibition.

In an interview examining the legal issues surrounding the event, Hausdorff argued that there was no evidentiary basis for treating the exhibition as potentially criminal.

She criticized statements by London Mayor Sadiq Khan and others who described Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria as illegal under international law, saying such claims misrepresented the legal position.

According to Hausdorff, much of the criticism directed at the event rests on the assumption that any property transaction connected to Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria is automatically unlawful.

She argued that this interpretation is not a settled legal conclusion and that politicians and campaigners are presenting a disputed legal position as though it were beyond debate.

Hausdorff maintained that Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, frequently cited by critics of Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria, applies to government action and not to private individuals engaging in property transactions.

She further argued that even under the legal framework advanced by Israel’s critics, there is no basis for claiming that private buyers or businesses participating in commercial transactions are committing unlawful acts.

Addressing Cooper’s comments, Hausdorff said references to businesses becoming involved in activities linked to potential breaches of international law had contributed to a misleading impression regarding the legality of the event.

A significant portion of the criticism surrounding the exhibition focused on allegations that properties in Gush Etzion were being marketed.

While noting that organizers had denied such claims, Hausdorff addressed the issue directly, pointing to the history of Gush Etzion as a Jewish community whose residents were expelled during Jordanian control of the area before returning after Israel gained control in the 1967 Six-Day War.

Hausdorff also rejected references in the parliamentary letter to a Palestinian “right of return," arguing that no such right exists under international law and describing it as a political issue raised during negotiations.

Comparing the controversy to other territorial disputes, she pointed to property sales connected to Northern Cyprus, arguing that politicians and campaign groups had not applied the same scrutiny to those activities.

According to Hausdorff, the differing responses demonstrate a selective application of international law.

Turning to the protests outside the synagogue that hosted the event, Hausdorff expressed concern that demonstrations had taken place outside a Jewish place of worship in a predominantly Jewish area.

She argued that the protests went beyond opposition to a property exhibition and were directed at members of the local Jewish community, including attendees and counter-protesters.

Hausdorff said claims that the event involved the sale of “Palestinian land" had contributed to hostility directed at Jews attending the exhibition.

She also cited recent criticism directed at a commercial development in Herzliya as evidence that objections frequently extend beyond Judea and Samaria to projects located within Israel itself.

Concluding her remarks, Hausdorff said the allegations underpinning the campaign against the exhibition lacked any basis in international law.

She argued that the controversy demonstrated a broader tendency to assume Israeli and Jewish wrongdoing before evidence had been established, adding that repeated misrepresentations of international law risk undermining both the Jewish community and confidence in the international legal system.