Dozens of Spanish cities declaring themselves ‘Free of Israeli Apartheid’

[NoNukes]

Cadiz, provincial capital in the autonomous community of Andalusia in the Spanish state, has become the latest municipality to pass a motion supporting the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement for Palestinian rights and declaring itself an Israeli “Apartheid Free Zone”.

With a population of 120,000, Cadiz joins more than 50 cities and towns across the Spanish state which have voted to declare themselves spaces free from Israeli apartheid. Other famous Apartheid Free municipalities include Gran Canaria, Santiago de Compostela, Xixón-Gijón, Sevilla, Córdoba and Santa Eulària in Ibiza.

Inspired in part by a similar campaign during the struggle against apartheid in South Africa in the 1980s, the Israeli Apartheid Free Zone campaign, led by theSolidarity Network Against the Occupation of Palestine (RESCOP), seeks to create ‘islands of political consciousness’ and to break local ties with Israel’s regime of occupation, settler-colonialism and apartheid, as well as with international corporations and institutions that are complicit in the maintenance of Israel’s violations of international law.

The campaign, which is supported by social movements, businesses, schools, media and public institutions from across the Spanish state, has created a map indicating spaces free from Israeli apartheid.

By declaring themselves Israeli Apartheid Free Zones, local authorities agree to boycott corporations complicit in violations of international law and the rights of Palestinians as well as break ties with the Israeli regime and its complicit institutions. They will also support local awareness raising efforts and commit to conscientious procurement policies based on the human rights of the Palestinian people.
Attacks on a movement for freedom, justice and equality
Growing public support for the BDS movement for Palestinian human rights has prompted Israel and its allies to launch an unprecedented, well-funded and anti-democratic attack against everyone seeking to hold Israel accountable to international law and UN resolutions, especially through BDS advocacy.

The Israeli-sponsored attacks on the BDS movement aim to put pressure on governments, legislators and officials to curtail BDS civic actions and adopt repressive measures that infringe upon their respective citizens’ civil and political liberties at large.

In the Spanish state, attempts to silence the BDS movement, particularly on an institutional level, have been led by ACOM, a pro-Israeli Madrid-based lobby group.

ACOM has launched a number of legal appeals against local councils that have declared themselves Israeli Apartheid Free Zones.

However, ACOM’s strategy of intimidation has not been successful. Targeted cities have defended the democratic outcome of the votes, and informed courts, such as the First Administrative Court of Gijon, refused to accept ACOM’s complaints.

Dozens of Spanish cities declaring themselves ‘Free of Israeli Apartheid’
Good for Spain[, may it Grow

Good for Spain. My family had an epic holiday there last month.

 

[RoccoR]

fanger, et al,

You have to read and understand the entire commentary; which I mentions in the Posting. I will amplify it for you here.

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

(SPECIFIC APPLICABLE ICRC COMMENTARY of 1958)

PARAGRAPH 6. -- DEPORTATION AND TRANSFER OF PERSONS INTO
OCCUPIED TERRITORY

This clause was adopted after some hesitation, by the XVIIth International Red Cross Conference (13). It is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race.
The paragraph provides protected persons with a valuable safeguard. It should be noted, however, that in this paragraph the meaning of the words "transfer" and "deport" is rather different from that in which they are used in the other paragraphs of Article 49, since they do not refer to the movement of protected persons but to that of nationals of the occupying Power.
It would therefore appear to have been more logical -- and this was pointed out at the Diplomatic Conference (14) -- to have made the clause in question into a separate provision distinct from Article 49, so that the concepts of "deportations" and "transfers" in that Article could have kept throughout the meaning given them in paragraph 1, i.e. the compulsory movement of protected persons from occupied territory.

(13) [(2) p.283] See ' XVIIth International Red Cross
Conference, Legal Commission, Summary of the Debates of
the Sub-Commissions, ' pp. 61-62 and 77-78;

(14) [(3) p.283] See ' Final Record of the Diplomatic
Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. II-A, p. 664;

(POINTS OF ORDER)

• The 1948-1949 Arab-Israeli Conflict (War) was under Armistice well before the Geneva Convention was put into force. The Convention was not in force until 21 October 1950; and is not even applicable to the Jordanian Annexation of the West Bank.

• The passage you specifically cite is not talking about the protected persons (Arab Palestinians in this case), but was talking about the nationals of the Occupying Power (Israeli Citizenry).

(COMMENT --- ONE MORE TIME)

Israel cannot have violated the Geneva Convention IV in the 1947-1948-1949, when it did not exist as enforceable International Law until lat 1950.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[NoNukes]

Spain...Where have I heard that name before.
Let's see, it got it's collective ass kicked by the British & French Empire.
It's an ass backward country with dirty streets.
The Inquisition.
Mandolins?

You are the ass backward one. Spain is beautiful and their culture is great.

 

[Penelope]

There is not a country the jews move into that is not torn apart from within, like a Trojan horse.

 

[Hollie]

There is not a country the jews move into that is not torn apart from within, like a Trojan horse.

Isn't that the "twoof". Ever since Angela Merkel decided to flood Europe with islamics from third world middle eastern countries, the jews have been ravaging the continent with suicide bombings, mass killings with automatic weapons and running down pedestrians with rental trucks.

 

[Indeependent]

Spain...Where have I heard that name before.
Let's see, it got it's collective ass kicked by the British & French Empire.
It's an ass backward country with dirty streets.
The Inquisition.
Mandolins?

You are the ass backward one. Spain is beautiful and their culture is great.

Not from what I hear from the college students in my town.

 

[Indeependent]

There is not a country the jews move into that is not torn apart from within, like a Trojan horse.

Those nations were only being held together by the Jews.

 

[P F Tinmore]

fanger, et al,

You have to read and understand the entire commentary; which I mentions in the Posting. I will amplify it for you here.

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

(SPECIFIC APPLICABLE ICRC COMMENTARY of 1958)

PARAGRAPH 6. -- DEPORTATION AND TRANSFER OF PERSONS INTO
OCCUPIED TERRITORY

This clause was adopted after some hesitation, by the XVIIth International Red Cross Conference (13). It is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race.
The paragraph provides protected persons with a valuable safeguard. It should be noted, however, that in this paragraph the meaning of the words "transfer" and "deport" is rather different from that in which they are used in the other paragraphs of Article 49, since they do not refer to the movement of protected persons but to that of nationals of the occupying Power.
It would therefore appear to have been more logical -- and this was pointed out at the Diplomatic Conference (14) -- to have made the clause in question into a separate provision distinct from Article 49, so that the concepts of "deportations" and "transfers" in that Article could have kept throughout the meaning given them in paragraph 1, i.e. the compulsory movement of protected persons from occupied territory.

(13) [(2) p.283] See ' XVIIth International Red Cross
Conference, Legal Commission, Summary of the Debates of
the Sub-Commissions, ' pp. 61-62 and 77-78;

(14) [(3) p.283] See ' Final Record of the Diplomatic
Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. II-A, p. 664;

(POINTS OF ORDER)

• The 1948-1949 Arab-Israeli Conflict (War) was under Armistice well before the Geneva Convention was put into force. The Convention was not in force until 21 October 1950; and is not even applicable to the Jordanian Annexation of the West Bank.

• The passage you specifically cite is not talking about the protected persons (Arab Palestinians in this case), but was talking about the nationals of the Occupying Power (Israeli Citizenry).

(COMMENT --- ONE MORE TIME)

Israel cannot have violated the Geneva Convention IV in the 1947-1948-1949, when it did not exist as enforceable International Law until lat 1950.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but much of the Geneva convention refined and/or reiterated already existing law. You can't just say that none of the tenets of GC existed before 1950.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Dozens of Spanish cities declaring themselves ‘Free of Israeli Apartheid’

fanger, et al,

I am amazed that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) make the allegation that "Israel" is "Apartheid," and that a unprecedented, well-funded and anti-democratic attack against everyone seeking to hold Israel accountable to:

• International Law,
• UN Resolutions,
• (especially through) BDS Advocacy.
​

I could easily take-up an entire internet page on just the morality of the HoAP attempt to use the Rome Statues (Crimes against Humanity) or the Fourth Geneva Convention to justify allegations and attempts to do harm against the Jewish State of Israel.

Cadiz, provincial capital in the autonomous community of Andalusia in the Spanish state, has become the latest municipality to pass a motion supporting the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement for Palestinian rights and declaring itself an Israeli “Apartheid Free Zone”.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
​

With a population of 120,000, Cadiz joins more than 50 cities and towns across the Spanish state which have voted to declare themselves spaces free from Israeli apartheid. Other famous Apartheid Free municipalities include Gran Canaria, Santiago de Compostela, Xixón-Gijón, Sevilla, Córdoba and Santa Eulària in Ibiza.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
​

Growing public support for the BDS movement for Palestinian human rights has prompted Israel and its allies to launch an unprecedented, well-funded and anti-democratic attack against everyone seeking to hold Israel accountable to international law and UN resolutions, especially through BDS advocacy.

(COMMENT)

• International Law (THE ROME STATUTE ENTERED INTO FORCE ON 1 JULY 2002) Not Applicable prior to 2002.

§ For the purpose of Paragraph 1 - Article 7

International Criminal Code: Article 7 Crimes Against Humanity

1. For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

(a) Murder;
(b) Extermination;
(c) Enslavement;
(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
​

ICC Meaning of "Apartheid"

(h) "The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;
​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
​

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
[indent[
DEPORTATIONS, TRANSFERS, EVACUATIONS
ARTICLE 49

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.
The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.
The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.
The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
​

Article 7 (1) (d) International Criminal Code: Crimes Against Humanity

Crime Against Humanity of deportation or forcible transfer of population Elements

1. The perpetrator deported or forcibly transferred, without grounds permitted under international law, one or more persons to another State or location, by expulsion or other coercive acts.
2. Such person or persons were lawfully present in the area from which they were so deported or transferred.
3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established the lawfulness of such presence.
4. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
5. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.

NOTES: The term “forcibly” is not restricted to physical force, but may include threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power against such person or persons or another person, or by taking advantage of a coercive environment.

“Deported or forcibly transferred” is interchangeable with “forcibly displaced.” Unlike deportation and forcible transfers, evacuation is a provisional measure entirely negative in character, and is, moreover, often (but not exclusively) taken in the interests of the protected persons themselves.
​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
​

This is a non-starter. There is no law (international or otherwise) wherein a population that has plegde itself to Jihad, and the armed struggle against a specific sovereinty must admit those threat into that country. In short, many countries have laws on the book that cover barment to entry deportation and removal of those undesirables in violation of immigration laws, serious criminal laws, terrorism, armed aggression, etc. ICRC Quote: "The 1958 Conference had particularly in mind the case of protected persons belonging to ethnic or political minorities who might have suffered discrimination or persecution on that account and might therefore wish to leave the country. In order to make due allowances for that legitimate desire the Conference decided to authorize voluntary transfers by implication, and only to prohibit "forcible" transfers."

And even when there were cases of "forceable" displacements, the HoAP were not moved beyond the limits of the territory formerly under the Mandate.

• UN Resolutions

Yes there are all kinds of lists that the anti-semitic, anti-Israeli, pro-HoAP have made in the last 70 years. But relative to "apartheid" there is no real evidence to submit supporting that allegation. The example (used to form conspiracy theories) is where the Knesset passed legislation that forbade spouses of Arab-Israeli citizens who are in the occupied territories from joining their families in Israel (with some exceptions). These are handled on a case by case basis. The apprehension here is that Israel might be forced to allow individuals with terrorist connections into the country. But as to the connection with the International Statute, there is no connection.

ISRAELI APARTHEID SYSTEM IS ILLEGAL: Laws Violated: International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1976). Link to our fact sheets on Israeli Apartheid. Israeli Actions:

The State of Israel has a formal system of legalized discrimination against Palestinian Arabs which technically fits the official UN definition of Apartheid. ILRC article. Israel’s society-wide system of discrimination and isolation of the Palestinian people within Israel, and its system of exploitation, oppression and isolation in the occupied territories, fits exactly the official, legal UN definition of apartheid, which is considered to be a crime against humanity. The practice of passing laws which give special favor throughout Israeli society to the Jewish people over all other people, and especially the native Palestinian Arab people, embodies the UN definition of apartheid, which is giving special favor to one group of people above all other groups based on criteria like what religion they are.

Another example is in 2003, the Israeli legislature (Knesset) passed legislation that forbade spouses of Arab-Israeli citizens who are in the occupied territories from joining their families in Israel (with some exceptions). The reason for this legislation is to help maintain the Jewish demographic majority family unification. The racist nature is evident in that only Palestinians (no other ethnic groups) are not forbidden to live in Israel after marrying an Israeli. ILRC article. General article. Amnesty International argues that this law violates fundamental principles of equity, human dignity and personal freedom enshrined in basic law as well as the rights of the child to live with both parents and other fundamental rights enshrined in human rights treaties in which Israel is a signer. ILRC article on Israeli Apartheid.
​

• BDS Advocacy: BDS is not enforceable law. End of argument.

Most Respectfully,
R

WOW, that fits Israel's violations to a T.

Thanks.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

To be honest, I cannot say you are wrong. It is just that I never see the pro-Arab Palestinians post anything but these in same old improper or inapplicable citations.

OK, but much of the Geneva convention refined and/or reiterated already existing law. You can't just say that none of the tenets of GC existed before 1950.

(COMMENT)

I've mention the improper interpretation and the flaw in trying to retro-actively apply laws.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Except that none of the citations are applicable.

WOW, that fits Israel's violations to a T.

Thanks.

(COMMENT)

I would like you to find an actual law that Israel violated relative to "apartheid."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Kondor3]

There is not a country the jews move into that is not torn apart from within, like a Trojan horse.

That's odd... the rest of the world (outside your domain of Islam) thinks the same about Islam... everything it touches turns to shit.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

To be honest, I cannot say you are wrong. It is just that I never see the pro-Arab Palestinians post anything but these in same old improper or inapplicable citations.

OK, but much of the Geneva convention refined and/or reiterated already existing law. You can't just say that none of the tenets of GC existed before 1950.

(COMMENT)

I've mention the improper interpretation and the flaw in trying to retro-actively apply laws.

Most Respectfully,
R

Like I say, some of these laws already existed in places like the Hague convention of 1907. This covered things like the confiscation or destruction of private and public property.

 

[Kondor3]

P F Tinmore, et al,

To be honest, I cannot say you are wrong. It is just that I never see the pro-Arab Palestinians post anything but these in same old improper or inapplicable citations.

OK, but much of the Geneva convention refined and/or reiterated already existing law. You can't just say that none of the tenets of GC existed before 1950.

(COMMENT)

I've mention the improper interpretation and the flaw in trying to retro-actively apply laws.

Most Respectfully,
R

Like I say, some of these laws already existed in places like the Hague convention of 1907. This covered things like the confiscation or destruction of private and public property.

That, and $3.50, will get you a cup of house blend at Starbucks.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, of course you can say this.

Like I say, some of these laws already existed in places like the Hague convention of 1907. This covered things like the confiscation or destruction of private and public property.

(COMMENT)

It is a much more difficult proposition to actually find such a reference; and not just make an unsubstantiated claim.

Now I know that the HR 1907 still plays a considerable part in other issues. Just not the one we are discussion.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Boston1]

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

You have NO evidence to suggest they did ;--)

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Except that none of the citations are applicable.

WOW, that fits Israel's violations to a T.

Thanks.

(COMMENT)

I would like you to find an actual law that Israel violated relative to "apartheid."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

Cadiz, provincial capital in the autonomous community of Andalusia in the Spanish state, has become the latest municipality to pass a motion supporting the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement for Palestinian rights and declaring itself an Israeli “Apartheid Free Zone”.

With a population of 120,000, Cadiz joins more than 50 cities and towns across the Spanish state which have voted to declare themselves spaces free from Israeli apartheid. Other famous Apartheid Free municipalities include Gran Canaria, Santiago de Compostela, Xixón-Gijón, Sevilla, Córdoba and Santa Eulària in Ibiza.

Inspired in part by a similar campaign during the struggle against apartheid in South Africa in the 1980s, the Israeli Apartheid Free Zone campaign, led by theSolidarity Network Against the Occupation of Palestine (RESCOP), seeks to create ‘islands of political consciousness’ and to break local ties with Israel’s regime of occupation, settler-colonialism and apartheid, as well as with international corporations and institutions that are complicit in the maintenance of Israel’s violations of international law.

The campaign, which is supported by social movements, businesses, schools, media and public institutions from across the Spanish state, has created a map indicating spaces free from Israeli apartheid.

By declaring themselves Israeli Apartheid Free Zones, local authorities agree to boycott corporations complicit in violations of international law and the rights of Palestinians as well as break ties with the Israeli regime and its complicit institutions. They will also support local awareness raising efforts and commit to conscientious procurement policies based on the human rights of the Palestinian people.
Attacks on a movement for freedom, justice and equality
Growing public support for the BDS movement for Palestinian human rights has prompted Israel and its allies to launch an unprecedented, well-funded and anti-democratic attack against everyone seeking to hold Israel accountable to international law and UN resolutions, especially through BDS advocacy.

The Israeli-sponsored attacks on the BDS movement aim to put pressure on governments, legislators and officials to curtail BDS civic actions and adopt repressive measures that infringe upon their respective citizens’ civil and political liberties at large.

In the Spanish state, attempts to silence the BDS movement, particularly on an institutional level, have been led by ACOM, a pro-Israeli Madrid-based lobby group.

ACOM has launched a number of legal appeals against local councils that have declared themselves Israeli Apartheid Free Zones.

However, ACOM’s strategy of intimidation has not been successful. Targeted cities have defended the democratic outcome of the votes, and informed courts, such as the First Administrative Court of Gijon, refused to accept ACOM’s complaints.

Dozens of Spanish cities declaring themselves ‘Free of Israeli Apartheid’
Good for Spain[, may it Grow

Good for Spain. My family had an epic holiday there last month.

Might be your last one when the EU folds and the Jews get their revenge by no longer supporting them fidcally until they repeal these laws and discredit the party behind them

 

[Phoenall]

There is not a country the jews move into that is not torn apart from within, like a Trojan horse.

Like America perhaps that is now being torn apart because obama has imported islamonazi terrorists in by the thousand ?

 

[Phoenall]

fanger, et al,

You have to read and understand the entire commentary; which I mentions in the Posting. I will amplify it for you here.

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

(SPECIFIC APPLICABLE ICRC COMMENTARY of 1958)

PARAGRAPH 6. -- DEPORTATION AND TRANSFER OF PERSONS INTO
OCCUPIED TERRITORY

This clause was adopted after some hesitation, by the XVIIth International Red Cross Conference (13). It is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race.
The paragraph provides protected persons with a valuable safeguard. It should be noted, however, that in this paragraph the meaning of the words "transfer" and "deport" is rather different from that in which they are used in the other paragraphs of Article 49, since they do not refer to the movement of protected persons but to that of nationals of the occupying Power.
It would therefore appear to have been more logical -- and this was pointed out at the Diplomatic Conference (14) -- to have made the clause in question into a separate provision distinct from Article 49, so that the concepts of "deportations" and "transfers" in that Article could have kept throughout the meaning given them in paragraph 1, i.e. the compulsory movement of protected persons from occupied territory.

(13) [(2) p.283] See ' XVIIth International Red Cross
Conference, Legal Commission, Summary of the Debates of
the Sub-Commissions, ' pp. 61-62 and 77-78;

(14) [(3) p.283] See ' Final Record of the Diplomatic
Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. II-A, p. 664;

(POINTS OF ORDER)

• The 1948-1949 Arab-Israeli Conflict (War) was under Armistice well before the Geneva Convention was put into force. The Convention was not in force until 21 October 1950; and is not even applicable to the Jordanian Annexation of the West Bank.

• The passage you specifically cite is not talking about the protected persons (Arab Palestinians in this case), but was talking about the nationals of the Occupying Power (Israeli Citizenry).

(COMMENT --- ONE MORE TIME)

Israel cannot have violated the Geneva Convention IV in the 1947-1948-1949, when it did not exist as enforceable International Law until lat 1950.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but much of the Geneva convention refined and/or reiterated already existing law. You can't just say that none of the tenets of GC existed before 1950.

Not as international laws they didn't as one nation would see them as a fundemental right while another saw them as opposition to their normal mode of winning the fight. As in taking the nubile young girls as sex slaves and killing all the men, last practised by the arab muslims.


NO INTERNATIONAL LAW CAN BE USED RETROSPECTIVELY UNLESS YOU WANT TO LOSE YOUR HOME AND PROPERTY IN AMERICA