South Africa has invoked the Genocide Convention against Israel over Gaza

[HeidiInTheBigCity]

The entire filing is 84 pages long and, frankly, took me several hours to read - it's well worth the effort, though, in that it is rather (painfully at times) clinical and devastating in equal measure: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20231228-app-01-00-en.pdf

Go, South Africa!

It might not male that much of a difference in the short term - but: to see the former victims of Apartheid take the lead on the world stage, and offer support (the way they - after multiple decades of campaigning and pressure ... it's not as though world leaders hated Apartheid South Africa "by default") is just ... a little spark of light within the darkness!

What exactly do you think Hamas think "the occupation" is?

Netanyahu wants Dershowitz at the ICJ

Retired Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz, who is known as a champion of Israel, defended former US President Donald Trump during his Senate impeachment trial as well as convicted sex offenders Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein.

I have read that, too, yes!

Not really sure what to think about the pick, to be honest: Dershowitz, while being an avid Israel-stan, is, say, not precisely known for "making it more about legal facts than about himself".

He is also 85 and, technically, not an international lawyer but specialised in US constitutional and criminal law.

The only explanation I can think of is "they assume they can only lose on the jurisprudence front and therefore want as much of as a propaganda-spectacle as humanly achievable".

Better explanations welcome!

Edit: missed a word!

The charter is actually very very clear that their goal is to end the occupation.

Dershowitz is a bit risky, seeing as 200 of the redacted names in Epstein case are due to be released today.

TBH he is good in what he specialises in, the fact that he represented Trump was good example of not sticking to tribalism as he is a Democrat and he did it to uphold the principle of not using lawfare against your rival.

Off topic as we were talking about Hezbollah earlier. The IDF has just assassinated a Hamas leader in Beirut. Hezbollah leader Nasrallah due to give a speech tomorrow.

I actually agree - but, again: his specialisation is in US constitutional and criminal law. And he is quite the colourful figure in his own right.

I genuinely do not quite follow the thinking here!

As for the strike on Beirut: massive escalation towards a wider regional conflict. This could get really ugly really fast, in case Hizbullah stick to their long-held supposed "red line" regarding Beirut.

The charter is actually very very clear that their goal is to end the occupation.

Yes. And they consider that to include all Israeli land.

They also say that they will accept a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders.

Netanyahu the cat strikes again. The region is hot right now.

From a journalist is Lebanon:

Nasrallah speech cancelled tomorrow. Based on previous speeches the situation is currently an eye for an eye, He is considering how to retaliate.
*Beirut bombed equals a target in Tel Aviv must be bombed or Nasrallah loses his influence.
*Turkey just arrested/detained 34 suspected mossad agents.

This latest escalation is very worrying. I hope it doesn't lead to something much worse.
I do wish this war would end and the international community was putting more of an effort in bringing an end to it especially in the current climate.

A ship flying the Liberian flag was attacked 200 nautical miles off the Indian coast and the USA immediately blamed Iran.

I thought most leaders were showing a degree of restraint but there are voices in politics (mostly American neocons) who just seem desperate to start a war.

I think they are arrogant enough to think they can contain it to the region. It's easy to start a war that not in your own back yard, it's harder to predict how it will develop once you've started it.

Yeah Senator Lindsay Graham, John Bolton and other Neocons (I include Republicans, Democrats, Tories and Labour in this group), are positively itching for a war with Iran.

I wish we could just send all our politicians and their loved ones to actually fight these Wars. Maybe they wouldn't be so keen.

Netanyahu's spokesperson has said that Netanyahu didn't know about/authorise the assassination. Stating that this was targeting Hamas, not Lebanon.

Malaysia has endorsed SAs request
https://twitter.com/sahouraxo/status/1742208673924227084

Are you,referring to the original 1988 charter? Or the charter as it currently is?

Pro Zionist journalists etc always time to refer to the 1988:charter and not the more 'moderate' current one

Quite - people chose only to refer to the 1988 charter and not the current one

Would it be better to refer to the interview with the Hamas leader from two months ago where he said they wanted the removal of Israel from the land?

In realistic terms, it would be "better" - or, at the very least "more analytically useful" to see "Hamas" [quotes deliberate, see below] for what it really is:

1. Ultimately, a nationalist movement - albeit with an Islamist twist
2. Quite multi-faceted and diverse in nature: "Hamas" encompasses both "grassroots" and "leadership", all of "Gaza", "West Bank", and "diaspora", all of "politbureau", "armed forces", "bureaucracy", and "ideology" - and, yes, they do disagree with each other and compete on "thought leadership"

And, yes, that means "it is COMPLICATED" and that there is no such thing as "one Hamas" any more than there is such as thing as "one Labour" in the UK - as a matter of fact: UK Labour seems downright "simple and straightforward" in comparison.

Think "Labour on gender stuff" is complicated and a mess? Try "Hamas, on Palestine".

I know this is not an "easy" or "straightforward" answer - but is is, arguably, a more useful way of looking at things than throwing "oh, but, Hamas thinks/says/does/wants/ ... " at each other!

What did the ones who raped, murdered and tortured all those people want? They want to keep doing it.

That seems to be fairly pertinent.

Actually both. It's all about the occupation. Theres nothing in either about wanting to kill Jewish people. The first is very gung ho and much more focused on violence. The second finds the two state idea a pragmatic solution and more amenable to negotiation.

I accept that not all members necessarily agree with the chatter in it's entirety, but it's still an important document.

Are you talking about Hamas or idf. So I understand who we are talking about taking into account both have raped murdered and tortured

Disingenuous.

The second finds the two state idea a pragmatic solution and more amenable to negotiation.

It says there shall be no recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist entity and it said that it “establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled to be a formula of national consensus”

So they want a Palestinian state, and for Palestinians who were expelled from Israel to return to their homes and they reject the Zionist entity which is Israel.

I’m not sure that counts as a two state solution if they only recognise one state,

This. Both are guilty of horrific things.

While I am perfectly aware that this is not what you mean (and I am quite deliberately ignoring the emotive tone - yes, all parties lie in war; I have been to one!):

This is actually quite the nice example of what I mean:

The person who most prominently and publicly stated that "Hamas" (see above for why I am putting it into quotes) is going to keep on doing 7 Oct. was Ghazi Hamad. He is a member of the Hamas politbureau in exile in Qatar.

Whereas 7 Oct - or "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood", as it was termed - was, according to everything that is known about it, planned, led and executed by the local arm of the Qassam brigades (and, actually: in collaboration with other local armed groups!) and that the politbureau might not even have been in the know about it all for - at the very least - a long time!

Look, you can go on and treat "but Hamas" as a monolith (and, for that matter: as the ONLY armed and prepared to resist Palestinian faction - they are decidedly not!) for all you want.

You can also do the same thing for "Israel" (even though we know that this is not true either - parts of the IDF and its leadership are, famously, at loggerheads with Netanyahu and his government over strategy).

You can do that - it just is not very useful (beyond its atrocity propaganda value).