Hamas legal bid to be REMOVED from list of proscribed terrorist organisation.

[CrunchyKnees]

I mean tbh, I wouldn’t be even slightly surprised if they are successful. No wonder they tried this in the UK first.

Why haven’t these solicitors been arrested for acting on behalf of, and supporting, a proscribed terrorist organisation already? This is a crime in the UK.

Even after Hamas leaders admitted to the Oct 7th atrocities and said they’d do it again and again.

This is an actual ‘look at our cool team walking in slow motion down the street’ video from the law firm on the case:
https://x.com/riverwaylaw/status/1909951298885001553

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/09/hamas-calls-on-the-uk-government-to-remove-it-from-list-of-banned-terrorist-groups

What is the MN consensus - Hamas are Freedom Fighters (seen this stated on here multiple occasions) or a terrorist organisation?

From this they do sound more distant from the barrister but on the site they have vacancies and mention teams.

They may be self employed but there has been a process for appointing this barrister?

Indeed and let’s hope they don’t appoint that same barrister again. Losing money is probably the best way to show them that they have made an error of judgement since they don’t understand it is morally reprehensible to represent Hamas.

Ireland? Amnesty International? Spain?

Actually quantumbutterfly introduced this topic in her post (suggesting that South Africa’s case for genocide is spurious and was premeditated before Oct 7th).

They can ask but it won’t fucking happen.

Which was discussed on another thread I believe, but this not a TAAT.

Lol, I responded directly and solely to the claim you made in your post. I haven’t made reference to any other threads.

The quotes I gave above were from a witness statement. Witneses in cases are not usually the lawyers involved. They are people involved in the issues themselves (not the law) who give a statement eg if someone worked in a company that breached a contract the lawyers would have the person at the company write the statement. It is the same here - this man Dr. Marzouk who live in Qatar is giving the statement that will be considered in the UK application to attempt to take Hamas off the banned list.

Libya?
Cuba?

Ireland? Amnesty International? Spain?

What‘s your point? Those are simply the 14 countries, what do you want me to say?

Ireland, that famous bastion of women's rights, religious freedoms, and who can forget their brave stand against fascism when it mattered. And the same Spain that threatened to block Scotland's entry to the EU in case they ended up having to concede land to their own separatist minority? Just the models we need.

Seems to me like his statement will do more harm than good to the case he's supposed to be supporting?

It's just another PR stunt isn't it. For all their genocidal murdering madness I think Hamas are actually quite smart.

Ah got it, Ireland and Spain don’t count. Which countries in the world do you feel have sufficient moral authority?

Ok thanks for clarifying. It sounded pretty bad for a barrister.

Still it’s part of the application, which is attached to a Chambers which wants to be well thought of. I wonder if they have enough control over cases if they end up releasing statements such as the one below trying to distance.

It seems to me this barrister, witness statements and case are linked to their reputation.

The US? The UK? Germany?

Why do you keep repeating the same thing?

I think very few countries can be held up as a paragon, though the list of signatories is probably worse than most.

On the underlying claim of genocide: I think that's too serious and too complex to pick a side tribally. What I did note though in the Amnesty's long and detailed report was that Amnesty believed Israel's actions didn't at that time amount to genocide in international law (they argued that a looser standard should be applied). I am not an international law expert, but that was pretty strong evidence to me that standard genocide threshold wasn't made out, as Amnesty to their credit conceded that even though they felt Israel's actions were abhorrent. What I do feel strongly about is that we shouldn't repurpose the term genocide for other things (however horrible those things are) because we really need the international legal frameworks and norms against genocide to hold.

So, basically, can I believe that the Netanyahu cabinet could be capable of genocidal intent? I can, certainly bits of it. Do I think that is what is actually happening? No, unless we redefine what genocide means. Why do I think this? One of the most persuasive things to me was the Amnesty report, because it carefully and honestly laid out that the international law threshold wasn't met, in its view, even though it is a harsh critic of Israel's action. Am I persuaded by Amnesty's view that we should water down the definition of genocide? No, I think the risks of politicising and thus discrediting the important norms we tried to spend much of the 20th century building up are too great. The is too much to lose. And do the views of Cuba, Egypt, etc on human rights persuade me much either way? Not really. I think that's largely politically-driven.

Well this is the crux isn't it. Moral authority seems to be a very subjective concept in geopolitics.
The point was that if SA had prepared a case against genocide before 7/10, or before the Israeli reaction really got underway, how much information did they have and how involved are they with hamas? Are they complicit?

As for the other countries on your list, are you suggesting they may also have had prior knowledge of 7/10? I hope not.

There is no evidence SA were complicit in anything. If having the blueprints of the attack for over a year before it happened and doing nothing about it doesn't make you complicit I'm not sure why this accusation is being leveled at SA. Well I am because they had the moral fibre to take Israel to court and we all know what happens when you question Israel in any way shape or form. It's never the argument that people try to attack, its always the person/country/organisation.

www.nytimes.com/2023/11/30/world/middleeast/israel-hamas-attack-intelligence.html

Oh I forgot, Israel knew about it and ignored it🙄

I think the question was in the timing of SA preparation of their genocide case, almost as if they knew something big was going to kick off. They were certainly quick off the mark.
There is some question about the source of SA funding too. (Iran)

So there is proof Israel knew and that gets an eye roll. SA were quick off the mark in asking for genocide to be investigated, no proof that they knew anything but they must be 'complicit' in your view. Let's hope Israel have more than conspiracy theories to explain all of their actions when their time comes in court, grieving families deserve better.

https://www.citizen.co.za/news/south-africa/politics/is-iran-funding-the-anc/

How on earth can they really expect it to be successful when they use the word Zionists.
Most non religious people in the uk weren’t really up on what a Zionist was-it was something that was said in the Matrix. Not a religious thing 😂

They are absolutely a death cult. Can you imagine if we had them as neighbours here in the uk? Won’t be long the way things are going.

@Madcatdudette - term has been around for years. Zionists were investigated themselves pre terrorism act and lists in the 40s

www.counterterrorism.police.uk/history/zionist-terrorism/