Pav1878
Full Member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2014
- Messages
- 1,369
Someone is worried about the atrocities he has endorsed and funded evidently.
This is true. A single state solution has as many obstacles as a two state solution.
Plus what would you call it?
I do have a problem with how the Israelis talk about being a Jewish state, but also talk of themselves as being a democracy. Which is it? Are you a secular democracy or are you a theocracy?
Oh please. Why do you think some Palestinians and Hamas don’t accept that status quo?The only country to offer the Palestinians a state was Israel. No one else did. On all occasions the offer was declined. Why? Because they want all of Israel (River to the Sea).
You think Hamas will be happy with a state in Gaza/WB? Wake up.
All that would happen is the Palestinian state would fail. Hamas and terrorist would continue to continue to fire at Israel, but this time Israel would finish the job and could do so under international law (State attacking another state).
Is it Jordan or Israel building settlements in the West Bank and harrassing/evicting Palestinians?Can you please be more specific what international law are you speaking about? Geneva convention? If so, you are saying Israel is occupying Jordanian territory? If that is the case, the occupation ended in 1994 by peace treaty between Israel and Jordan. Or you do say that after 1967 Israel is occupying its own territory? Or you do say that Israel is occupying Palestinian territory which was occupied by Jordan until 1967. Or Israel is occupying territories of Mandate of Palestine? Occupation is a legal term which you cannot use as you like. Or you can, but it has no legal bases in international law.
Oh please. Why do you think some Palestinians and Hamas don’t accept that status quo?
It’s easy to accept something nothing as Israel did than go from having the whole pie and being offered less than half.
Israel is occupying Palestinian land. Whether that land was/is recognised by the West as being the state of Palestine or not is irrelevant. The Palestinians have lived there for centuries. As the Native Americans lived on their land for centuries. There was no Native American state recognised by the West, before the settlers came and took that land from them. Does that mean the Nativr Americans didn’t exist or don’t matter? Does it mean they have no rights?
Your argument about there being no Palestinian state before 1948 also applies to Israel.
India was in effect British Mandate India before partition. Does that mean India didn’t exist before that?
This is about the rights of Palestinian self determination, human rights and the right o statehood. If the Israelis have that right then of course the Palestinians do too. It’s as simple as that.
Does uti possidetis juris apply also to Israel or to every other country but Israel?Is it Jordan or Israel building settlements in the West Bank and harrassing/evicting Palestinians?
Israel has had two PMs who were terrorists:
- Menachem Begin (Leader of the Irgun)
- Yithzak Shamir (Leader of the Lehi)
Another one who was a certified war criminal:
- Ariel Sharon (the Sabra and Chatila massacre in 1982 carried out by christian lebanese phalangists happened under his willful watch. That's one of his many heroic deeds)
Today:
- Benjamin Netanyahu: a crook and also a war criminal
Hearing and Israel and its sycophants talking about terrorism and rewarding it is absolutely hilarious.
We also got a massive revisionist in this thread as the post just above mine shows.
Is it Jordan or Israel building settlements in the West Bank and harrassing/evicting Palestinians?
Every argument you present has been completely debunked at length in this thread so many times that it becomes easier to just ignore it. It's a matter of historiography you're arguing (semantic) when the current topic is genocide.The West Bank was Jordan in the 1960's. No one accused the Jordanians of occupation. In fact, the Palestinians didn't care at all.
The West Bank was occupied after Jordan started a war in 1967 and lost it.
Israeli ambassador to Norway now calling Norway one of the most hostile countries towards Israel in Europe. Hopefully it is taken as a huge compliment.
I thought their tears would be delicious. But I was wrong - they're fecking disgusting, just like everything else to do with the terrorist state of israel.I can't believe people are triggered by gfactor. Did you learn nothing?
You don't exist in this thread prior to November, last year, when every post is as IDF propaganda. So this is very ironic (when talking about selectivity).Some of them like when this thread is in the mode of Hamas PR newsletter.
Just sets a precedent.
Now if the Catalans are serious about statehood then they should launch a heinous campaign of brutal terrorism against Spain? Spark a reaction from Spain, so that the world recognises that the Catalan's should have a state.
And what's the bolded supposed to mean/imply? That the West Bank should be official Israeli territory?The West Bank was Jordan in the 1960's. No one accused the Jordanians of occupation. In fact, the Palestinians didn't care at all.
The West Bank was occupied after Jordan started a war in 1967 and lost it.
Yes yes, non-partisan. And Francesca Albanese is the superstar representative of those non-partisan bodies. I might have also heard about Nawaf Sawan who is not only non-partisan but also completely unbiased. He is a judge or something? Maybe you can educate me since I have interest in this matter only since November (however you came to this conclusion).By non-partisan international bodies which release very detailed reports. You'd maybe have heard about them if you had any interest in the matter prior to November of last year.
I don't find his posts funny anymore to be honest. Initially it was amusing to see someone attempt to defend the genocide in Gaza but it's long gone past being funny. I think about my home town and the amount of women and children killed exceed that population. It's a fecking disgrace this has continued and Governments defend it.
Yes yes, non-partisan. And Francesca Albanese is the superstar representative of those non-partisan bodies. I might have also heard about Nawaf Sawan who is not only non-partisan but also completely unbiased. He is a judge or something? Maybe you can educate me since I have interest in this matter only since November (however you came to this conclusion).
Reports by NGOs
2009 legal study of the South African Human Sciences Research Council
Following Dugard's report, the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) of South Africa commissioned a legal study, completed in 2009, of Israel's practices in the occupied Palestinian territories under international law.[179] The report noted that one of South African apartheid's most "notorious" aspects was the "racial enclave policy" manifested in the Black Homelands called bantustans, and added: "As the apartheid regime in South Africa, Israel justifies these measures under the pretext of 'security'. Contrary to such claims, they are in fact part of an overall regime aimed at preserving demographic superiority of one racial group over the other in certain areas".[180] According to the report, Israel's practices in the occupied Palestinian territories correlate almost entirely with the definition of apartheid as established in Article 2 of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. Comparison to South African laws and practices by the apartheid regime also found strong correlations with Israeli practices, including violations of international standards for due process (such as illegal detention); discriminatory privileges based on ascribed ethnicity (legally, as Jewish or non-Jewish); draconian enforced ethnic segregation in all parts of life, including by confining groups to ethnic "reserves and ghettoes"; comprehensive restrictions on individual freedoms, such as movement and expression; a dual legal system based on ethno-national identity (Jewish or Palestinian); denationalization (denial of citizenship); and a special system of laws designed selectively to punish any Palestinian resistance to the system. The study found: "the State of Israel exercises control in the Occupied Palestinian Territories with the purpose of maintaining a system of domination by Jews over Palestinians and that this system constitutes a breach of the prohibition of apartheid." The report was published in 2012 as Beyond Occupation: Apartheid, Colonialism and International Law in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.[181]
The question of whether Israelis and Palestinians are "racial groups" has been a point of contention in regard to the applicability of the ICSPCA and Article 7 of the Rome Statute. The HSRC's 2009 report states that in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Jewish and Palestinian identities are "socially constructed as groups distinguished by ancestry or descent as well as nationality, ethnicity, and religion". On this basis, the study concludes that Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs can be considered "racial groups" for the purposes of the definition of apartheid in international law.[179]
2020 Yesh Din
In 2020, the Israeli human rights organization Yesh Din found that Israeli treatment of the West Bank's Palestinian population meets the definition of the crime of apartheid under both Article 7 of the 2002 Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court (ICC), and the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (ICSPCA) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, which went into force in 1976.[182]
2021 B'Tselem report
In January 2021, Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem issued a report outlining the considerations that led to the conclusion that "the bar for labeling the Israeli regime as apartheid has been met."[12] In presenting the report, B'Tselem Executive Director Hagai El-Ad said, "Israel is not a democracy that has a temporary occupation attached to it: it is one regime between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, and we must look at the full picture and see it for what it is: apartheid."[183]
2021 FIDH statement
In March 2021, the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) issued a statement saying, "The international community must hold Israel responsible for its crimes of apartheid", citing the work of its member organizations in Israel and Palestine.[184]
2021 Human Rights Watch report
In April 2021, Human Rights Watch released a report accusing Israeli officials of the crimes of apartheid and persecution under international law and calling on the International Criminal Court to investigate "systematic discrimination" against Palestinians, becoming the first major international rights NGO to do so.[185] Its report said that Israeli authorities "have dispossessed, confined, forcibly separated, and subjugated Palestinians by virtue of their identity to varying degrees of intensity" and that "in certain areas ... these deprivations are so severe that they amount to the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution."[186] Israel rejected the report, with Strategic Affairs Minister Michael Biton saying, "The purpose of this spurious report is in no way related to human rights, but to an ongoing attempt by HRW to undermine the State of Israel's right to exist as the nation state of the Jewish people."[187] Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh welcomed HRW's report, urging the ICC to investigate Israeli officials "implicated in the crimes against humanity of apartheid or persecution".[188] The US State Department came out against HRW's report, saying, "It is not the view of this administration that Israel's actions constitute apartheid."[189]
2022 Amnesty report
Amnesty secretary general Agnes Callamard dismissed the criticism of its report as shooting the messenger.
On 1 February 2022, Amnesty International published a report, Israel's Apartheid Against Palestinians: Cruel System of Domination and Crime Against Humanity,[190] which stated that Israeli practices in Israel and the occupied territories amount to apartheid and that territorial fragmentation of the Palestinians "serves as a foundational element of the regime of oppression and domination".[191] The report states that, taken together, Israeli practices, including land expropriation, unlawful killings, forced displacement, restrictions on movement, and denial of citizenship rights amount to the crime of apartheid.[192] The report suggested the International Criminal Court include the crime of apartheid as part of its investigations. Even before its release, Israeli officials condemned the report as "false and biased" and antisemitic,[193][194] accusations that Amnesty secretary general Agnes Callamard dismissed as "baseless attacks, barefaced lies, fabrications on the messenger".[195][196] The Anti-Defamation League criticized the report, saying, "Amnesty International's allegations that Israel's crimes go back to the sin of its creation in 1948, serve to present the Jewish and democratic state as singularly illegitimate at its foundational roots."[197] The U.S. State Department also rejected the report's conclusions, calling them "absurd", and added: "it is important, as the world's only Jewish state, that the Jewish people must not be denied their right to self-determination, and we must ensure there isn't a double standard being applied."[198][199] German Foreign Ministry spokesperson Christopher Burger said, "We reject expressions like apartheid or a one-sided focusing of criticism on Israel. That is not helpful to solving the conflict in the Middle East".[200] A spokesperson for the UK's Foreign and Commonwealth Development Office said, "we do not agree with the use of this terminology".[201][202] The Dutch foreign minister responded by saying his government "does not agree with Amnesty's conclusion that there is apartheid in Israel or the territories occupied by Israel."[203] J Street, a nonprofit liberal organization, did not endorse the use of the term apartheid, while discouraging labeling those who use the term "antisemitic".[204][205] Thirteen Israeli human rights organizations issued a statement[206] defending Amnesty and the report.[207] Omar Shakir, the Israel and Palestine director of Human Rights Watch, which produced a similar report in 2021, said, "There is certainly a consensus in the international human rights movement that Israel is committing apartheid."[208] The Arab League and the OIC welcomed the report,[209] while the Palestinian Authority said in a statement, "The State of Palestine welcomes the report by Amnesty International on Israel's apartheid regime and racist policies and practices against the Palestinian people".[210]
On 28 September 2022, Al-Haq hosted representatives of Amnesty International, the International Federation for Human Rights and Human Rights Watch in Ramallah. Referring to Israel's outlawing of Palestinian NGOs, Amnesty International's France director of campaigns Nathalie Godard said: "The repression of Palestinian civic space is part of the system of apartheid. Not only are Palestinians under Israeli military occupation, conducted with manifold violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law, but then also those organizations and human rights defenders who seek to assist people in need are shut down."[211][212]
In its March 2023 annual report, Amnesty condemned Western countries' "double standards" with respect to Israel and other countries. The report said, "Rather than demand an end to that system of oppression, many Western governments chose instead to attack those denouncing Israel's apartheid system."[213][214][215][216][217]
2022 jurists statement
In March 2022, the International Commission of Jurists said it "strongly condemns Israel's laws, policies and practices of racial segregation, persecution and apartheid against the indigenous Palestinian population in Israel and in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), comprising the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and against Palestinian refugees".[218]
2022 ICC submission by Dawn
The US-based NGO Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN) filed a complaint with the ICC against senior Israeli military lawyer Eyal Toledano for war crimes and crimes against humanity, including apartheid. The submission follows a months-long investigation by the NGO into incidents in the West Bank between 2016 and 2020 and falls within the scope of the current International Criminal Court investigation in Palestine. DAWN Executive Director Sarah Leah Whitson said, "The international legal community, democracies across the world, and in particular the signatories of the Apartheid Convention and Rome Statute have an obligation to reject Israeli apartheid by holding Toledano accountable for his culpability in the crime of apartheid". The Israeli military said it "thoroughly rejects" the claims, which it called "baseless".[219][220][221][222]
Overview of reports
Human rights lawyer and B'tselem director Smadar Ben-Natan analyzed the different reports in terms of temporal and spatial framing, whether they look at the situation from 1948 or from 1967, and whether they include Israel. ESCWA and the Palestinian NGOs take a very broad approach, "arguing that apartheid exists in the entire territory under Israeli control since 1948, being the constitutive logic of the State of Israel (raison d'état)", while Yesh Din focuses only on the occupied territories post-1967. B'tselem includes Israel but limits its scope to post-1967 while the HRW report differs from it in finding that while "the elements of systematic and widespread repression with the intention of maintaining the superiority of one group exist both within Israel and in the OPT, only in the OPT (including East Jerusalem) does the severity of inhumane acts make them criminal." The Amnesty report is "the only report explicitly arguing that crimes of apartheid have been perpetrated inside Israel since 1948, and accordingly considers many Israeli policies as falling under the category of inhumane acts". The UN Special Rapporteur report follows the mandate given and examines only the occupied territory, concluding "that Israel's occupation has turned into a system of apartheid, and that the crime of apartheid is being committed."[223]
According to author Ran Greenstein, "Two features are shared by all the reports: they agree that apartheid is a relevant, indeed essential, concept for the analysis of Israeli rule, and they focus on legal analysis and political arrangements, paying scant attention to social and historical aspects of the evolution of Israeli, Palestinian, and South African societies."[224]
Additional views
Scholarly views
In their 2005 book-length study Seeking Mandela: Peacemaking Between Israelis and Palestinians, Heribert Adam of Simon Fraser University and Kogila Moodley of the University of British Columbia wrote that controversy over use of the term arises because Israel as a state is unique in the region. They write that Israel is perceived as a Western democracy and is thus likely to be judged by the standards of such a state. Israel also claims to be a home for the worldwide Jewish diaspora.[225] Adam and Moodley note that Jewish historical suffering has imbued Zionism with a "subjective sense of moral validity" that the ruling white South Africans never had.[226] They also suggest that academic comparisons between Israel and apartheid South Africa that see both dominant groups as settler societies leave unanswered the question of "when and how settlers become indigenous", as well as failing to take into account that Israeli's Jewish immigrants view themselves as returning home.[227] Adam and Moodley write, "because people give meaning to their lives and interpret their worlds through these diverse ideological prisms, the perceptions are real and have to be taken seriously."[228]
Manfred Gerstenfeld quoted Gideon Shimoni, professor emeritus of Hebrew University, as saying in a 2007 interview that the analogy is defamatory and reflects a double standard when applied to Israel and not to neighboring Arab countries, whose policies towards their Palestinian minorities have been described as discriminatory.[229] Shimoni said that while apartheid was characterized by racially based legal inequality and exploitation of Black Africans by the dominant Whites within a common society, the Israel–Palestinian conflict reflects "separate nationalisms", as Israel refuses to exploit Palestinians, on the contrary seeking separation and "divorce" from Palestinians for legitimate self-defense reasons.[229][self-published source?]
An August 2021 survey found that 65% of academic experts on the Middle East described Israel as a "one-state reality akin to apartheid". Seven months earlier, that percentage was 59%.[230] The increase in only seven months was potentially because of two notable events that occurred between the two surveys: the crisis in Israel following planned evictions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem pointing up the unequal treatment of Jews and Palestinians under Israeli control and the subsequent 2021 Israel-Palestine crisis, and the issue of two widely read reports by the Israeli-based B'Tselem and the US-based Human Rights Watch arguing respectively that there is an apartheid reality in Israel and the Palestinian territories and that Israel's behavior fits the legal definition of apartheid.[231]
On 14 April 2023, Foreign Policy released a feature-length piece, Israel's One-State Reality, co-authored by Michael Barnett, Nathan Brown, Marc Lynch, and Shibley Telhami. The authors wrote that the "illusion of a two-state solution" had been shattered by the return of Benjamin Netanyahu at the head of a far-right Israeli coalition and called on the U.S. government to "stop shielding Israel in international organizations" when confronted by accusations of violations of international law. It concluded that "the one-state reality demands more. Looked at through that prism, Israel resembles an apartheid state."[232]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_apartheid#cite_note-232
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_apartheid#cite_note-auto3-234
It is a pretty big slander, in some countries they are a proscribed terrorist organisation so there are legal implications to these accusations.You clearly have problems with reading if you think that there's Hamas supporters here. But I'm not surprised.
If there are, name them. If you can't, drop the slander.
it's been a while since they've posted.You're off your rocker.
In short, our response will be to drive more people towards extremism.Why is the Israeli state so often so performatively disgusting? Even the likes of Putin will usually dress up his villainy with some specious narrative.
https://x.com/ytirawi/status/1793222045716685053
Why is the Israeli state so often so performatively disgusting? Even the likes of Putin will usually dress up his villainy with some specious narrative.
https://x.com/ytirawi/status/1793222045716685053
@Giggsy PO and @gfactor86 what exactly is your vision for a settlement in Israel/Palestine that you’d like to see fulfilled, and how do today’s announcements impact it?
@Giggsy PO and @gfactor86 what exactly is your vision for a settlement in Israel/Palestine that you’d like to see fulfilled, and how do today’s announcements impact it?
I suppose that of them have most likely either reflected on their support, or simply have no leg to stand on and just skip the thread. For any decent human being, there's no moral ground, no justification to what Israel's doing in Gaza and the West Bank.It's pretty interesting that there is a grand total of two Israel supporters in this thread. You just know that if some distraction, smear, or gaslighting is being posted it's by one of the two doofuses.
Without this handover period you'd risk some Islamic caliphate / Taliban style regime and the new state would simply fail.
Sounds like you agree with Salman Rushdie's take on things.
Today's announcement changes little.
What I would like to see is a Palestinian state that can co-exist peacefully and in prosperity with Israel. Jordan and Egypt are examples of this.
My vision for this would be complete withdrawal of all Jewish settlements in the WB and Gaza rebuilt connect the 2x areas with a tunnel as the basis for the land of a Palestinian state. Some sort of shared access to Jerusalem.
Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi, UAE would need to work together to fund the new state and police it for a good few years, hold elections and then finally handover the keys to the new Palestinian government.
Without this handover period you'd risk some Islamic caliphate / Taliban style regime and the new state would simply fail.
I was pleasantly surprised about this as well. I guess a lot of this stems from being in the EU and therefore being used to giving up some sovereignty to bigger institutions.
I also believe that while German politics appear quite united behind Israel, many of these politicians actually welcome the charges and view the current Israeli actions as just as despicable as many on here. They just don’t want to risk their positions in case of a possible backlash.