montelatici, et al,
A good and reasonable question.
First, the State of Israel is neither a signatory to the Rome Statutes OR the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. 30 November 1973. (See UNTC) (NOTE: Neither is the State of Palestine.)
The definition of the crime is essentially the same in both the Rome Statutes (Article 7) OR the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment (Article II); with the exception that nearly all the violations in the Convention are along the lines of "racial group of persons." Whereas, the Rome Statute is focused on "with the intention of maintaining that regime."
Secondly, the instrument that "defines the crime" does not limit the application of the definition. What defines "apartheid" does not restrict it application to either Israel or Palestine. It merely establishes a common understanding.
In the case of Israel, its constituency of citizens is multi-racial. There is no discrimination based on race with the "intention of maintaining that regime." In fact, we do not understand what "regime" is being accused or what "races" are involved. Israel is a multi-party, democratically elected, Parliament (Knesset) government with various cultures as members of the Parliament (including Arabs).
There is no specific allegation here with the description of any policy, program, or action that Israel has committed that is associated with a specific prohibition. You keep saying it is "apartheid" but you never actually identify:
Most Respectfully,
R
A good and reasonable question.
(COMMENT)Israel has not acceeded to the Rome Statute (ICC). Why are you quoting it? Israel has signed the
International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. 30 November 1973. That's what I provided as the criteria that Israel has agreed to. Under that criteria Israel is an Apartheid state, no amount of tap dancing around the issue by you will change that. It is just fact.
First, the State of Israel is neither a signatory to the Rome Statutes OR the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. 30 November 1973. (See UNTC) (NOTE: Neither is the State of Palestine.)
The definition of the crime is essentially the same in both the Rome Statutes (Article 7) OR the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment (Article II); with the exception that nearly all the violations in the Convention are along the lines of "racial group of persons." Whereas, the Rome Statute is focused on "with the intention of maintaining that regime."
Secondly, the instrument that "defines the crime" does not limit the application of the definition. What defines "apartheid" does not restrict it application to either Israel or Palestine. It merely establishes a common understanding.
In the case of Israel, its constituency of citizens is multi-racial. There is no discrimination based on race with the "intention of maintaining that regime." In fact, we do not understand what "regime" is being accused or what "races" are involved. Israel is a multi-party, democratically elected, Parliament (Knesset) government with various cultures as members of the Parliament (including Arabs).
(COMMENT)I
International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. 30 November 1973. That's what I provided as the criteria that Israel has agreed to. Under that criteria Israel is an Apartheid state, no amount of tap dancing around the issue by you will change that. It is just fact.
There is no specific allegation here with the description of any policy, program, or action that Israel has committed that is associated with a specific prohibition. You keep saying it is "apartheid" but you never actually identify:
- What action is "apartheid" ---
- What prohibition it violated ---
Most Respectfully,
R
Last edited: