This Road is for Jews Only. Yes, There is Apartheid in Israel

[MHunterB]

The article about license plates was a reference for the information about roads. Motor vehicles travel upon roads. The license plates indicate who is the vehicle's owner of record: that is most likely to be who is driving .....

Incidentally, there are areas of the WB where Israeli vehicles are not permitted. Nobody seems to have noticed that.

Also, the Israelis didn't start out just restricting travel on the roads: many incidents of thugs attempting to murder people by throwing rocks at the cars, blocking roads and ambushing cars, etc, etc occurred before any of that was done.

Funny how some people seem to forget all that.......

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Apartheid became a crime under international law in 1976.

There was no crime of Apartheid when Jordan occupied Palestine.

International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid

Adopted and opened for signature, ratification by General Assembly resolution 3068 (XXVIII) of 30 November 1973, entry into force 18 July 1976, in accordance with article XV

International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid

Jordan never had sovereignty rights in the land, they were occupiers too.
Occupations do not give nations sovereignty rights in land.

The sovereignty rights to the land belong to the indigenous Palestinian people who have a right of self determination in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Thanks for exposing the hypocrisy of the entire BDS enterprise. Why was there no BDS commotion over the Jordanian occupation? After all, Jordan was an 'Occupier'- and we can see the photos in LIFE magazine of Jordanian troops perpetrating ethnic cleansing in East Jerusalem, so we know the Jordanians committed war crimes and crimes against humanity......

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid

Article I

1. The States Parties to the present Convention declare that apartheid is a crime against humanity and that inhuman acts resulting from the policies and practices of apartheid and similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination, as defined in article II of the Convention, are crimes violating the principles of international law, in particular the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and constituting a serious threat to international peace and security.2. The States Parties to the present Convention declare criminal those organizations, institutions and individuals committing the crime of apartheid.

Article II

For the purpose of the present Convention, the term "the crime of apartheid", which shall include similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as practised in southern Africa, shall apply to the following inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them:a. Denial to a member or members of a racial group or groups of the right to life and liberty of person:i. By murder of members of a racial group or groups;ii. By the infliction upon the members of a racial group or groups of serious bodily or mental harm, by the infringement of their freedom or dignity, or by subjecting them to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;iii. By arbitrary arrest and illegal imprisonment of the members of a racial group or groups;b. Deliberate imposition on a racial group or groups of living conditions calculated to cause its or their physical destruction in whole or in part;c. Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups, in particular by denying to members of a racial group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognized trade unions, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association;d. Any measures, including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for the members of a racial group or groups, the prohibition of mixed marriages among members of various racial groups, the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof;e. Exploitation of the labour of the members of a racial group or groups, in particular by submitting them to forced labour;f. Persecution of organizations and persons, by depriving them of fundamental rights and freedoms, because they oppose apartheid.International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid

 

[MHunterB]

We live in the year 2014, I cannot answer for what other people did in another place and another time.

The issue today and in this thread is Apartheid in Israel and Palestine today.

AND people of conscience respond to Apartheid with BDS.

Of course you can't answer: that would require acknowledging the hypocrisy of the BDS 'organizers'.... I'm sure there are some decent folk among the 'supporters' of BDS (present company excepted!).

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

We live in the year 2014, I cannot answer for what other people did in another place and another time.

The issue today and in this thread is Apartheid in Israel and Palestine today.

AND people of conscience respond to Apartheid with BDS.

Of course you can't answer: that would require acknowledging the hypocrisy of the BDS 'organizers'.... I'm sure there are some decent folk among the 'supporters' of BDS (present company excepted!).

Can you read English?

The international crime of Apartheid came into existence in 1976. SEE Post 182.

BDS is a response to Israels Apartheid.

 

[aris2chat]

This Road is for Jews Only. Yes, There is Apartheid in Israel | Global Research



There is no such thing "Road for Jews only".

Liar.

There are roads for Israelis only.

433 was the one highway between tel aviv toward jerusalem, which passes through a part of the WB, that was restricted at times for security before 2010. It was never a jew only road.

 

[Kondor3]

"...The issue today and in this thread is Apartheid in Israel and Palestine today..."

Well, I can't speak for Palestine, but there is no Apartheid in Israel.

"...people of conscience respond to Apartheid with BDS."

They buy tickets to a Flea Circus?

 

[Indofred]

Maybe this will finally shut up the apartheid deniers. Denying apartheid in israel is like denying the holocaust.

Will you please stop telling the truth.
Supporting Israel makes billion of Dollars for the U.S. arms industry and, apart from a few thousand American troops who die in wars to keep Israel top of the tree in the area, no Americans are harmed.
Of course, you can't afford free health care to save your babies because Israel takes the money you could have used to fund it.
Still, what do a few American children matter when you can save a country like Israel?
After all, what has Israel ever done to America except murdering a load of navy boys when they tried to sink a U.S. navy ship and probably set up the 9/11 attacks.

 

[Kondor3]

Maybe this will finally shut up the apartheid deniers. Denying apartheid in israel is like denying the holocaust.

Will you please stop telling the truth. Supporting Israel makes billion of Dollars for the U.S. arms industry and, apart from a few thousand American troops who die in wars to keep Israel top of the tree in the area, no Americans are harmed. Of course, you can't afford free health care to save your babies because Israel takes the money you could have used to fund it. Still, what do a few American children matter when you can save a country like Israel? After all, what has Israel ever done to America except murdering a load of navy boys when they tried to sink a U.S. navy ship and probably set up the 9/11 attacks.

Lord Haw-Haw?

 

[Chaussette]

There is no such thing "Road for Jews only".

Liar.

Then what do you call roads that prohibit Palestinian's from traveling on?

Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem reports that 170 km of roads in the West Bank are either off-limits to Palestinians or highly restricted.

Safe.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

people get attacked.

people win wars.

do you suggest giving texas and california to mexico?

or the rest of this country to native americans?

get over it…. or you could always stop making things up.

there has NEVER been a palestinian state…. never.

Doesn't have to be a Palestinian state for the people living there to have inalienable rights. There was an indigenous majority of non-Jewish residents living in that area for generations that were denied their right to self-determination. That's not make believe, that's a fact!

In addition, "conquer by conquest" has been outlawed since the end of WWII. You cannot hold onto land seized in a war. IT IS ILLEGAL!

And finally, I wouldn't mind giving Texas back. I ******* hate Texas!

Like a goldfish, you have forgotten already.

Of course you can hold on to land seized if it is seized as part of a defensive war.


The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and Israeli government websites who support the view that the territories are not occupied argue that use of the term "occupied" in relation to Israel's control of the areas has no basis in international law or history,[6][7] and that it prejudges the outcome of negotiations. They regard the territories as "disputed" based on the following legal arguments:

No borders have been established or recognized by the parties. Armistice lines do not establish borders, and the 1949 Armistice Agreements in particular specifically stated (at Arab insistence) that they were not creating permanent or de jure borders.[6]

In line with the above idea, the Israeli government has officially stated that its position is that the territories cannot be called occupied, as no nation had clear rights to them, and there was no operative diplomatic arrangement, when Israel acquired them in June 1967.[7]

Territories are only "occupied" if they are captured in war from an established and recognized sovereign, but no state had a legitimate or recognized sovereignty over the West Bank, Gaza Strip or East Jerusalem prior to the Six-Day War.[6]

The Fourth Geneva Convention is not applicable to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, since, under its Article 2, it pertains only to "cases of…occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party" by another High Contracting party. The West Bank and Gaza Strip have never been the legal territories of any High Contracting Party.[7][8][9]

Even if the Fourth Geneva Convention had applied at one point, they certainly did not apply once the Israel transferred governmental powers to the Palestinian Authority in accordance with the 1993 Oslo Accords, since Article 6 of the convention states that the Occupying Power would only be bound to its terms "to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory....".[10]

Israel took control of the West Bank as a result of a defensive war. The language of "occupation" has allowed Palestinian spokesmen to obfuscate this history. By repeatedly pointing to "occupation," they manage to reverse the causality of the conflict, especially in front of Western audiences. Thus, the current territorial dispute is allegedly the result of an Israeli decision "to occupy," rather than a result of a war imposed on Israel by a coalition of Arab states in 1967. Former State Department Legal Advisor Stephen Schwebel, who later headed the International Court of Justice in the Hague, wrote in 1970 regarding Israel's case: "Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title."[6]

 

[Billo_Really]

Like a goldfish, you have forgotten already.

Of course you can hold on to land seized if it is seized as part of a defensive war.

There is something really retarded about a person who is shown the truth, yet insists on telling the same lie over and over and over.

I've told you on several occasions, you cannot claim self defense, when you fired the first shot. Israeli tanks rolled into Egypt to start that war. Period.

The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and Israeli government websites who support the view that the territories are not occupied argue that use of the term "occupied" in relation to Israel's control of the areas has no basis in international law or history,[6][7] and that it prejudges the outcome of negotiations. They regard the territories as "disputed" based on the following legal arguments:

No borders have been established or recognized by the parties. Armistice lines do not establish borders, and the 1949 Armistice Agreements in particular specifically stated (at Arab insistence) that they were not creating permanent or de jure borders.[6]

In line with the above idea, the Israeli government has officially stated that its position is that the territories cannot be called occupied, as no nation had clear rights to them, and there was no operative diplomatic arrangement, when Israel acquired them in June 1967.[7]

Territories are only "occupied" if they are captured in war from an established and recognized sovereign, but no state had a legitimate or recognized sovereignty over the West Bank, Gaza Strip or East Jerusalem prior to the Six-Day War.[6]

The Fourth Geneva Convention is not applicable to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, since, under its Article 2, it pertains only to "cases of…occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party" by another High Contracting party. The West Bank and Gaza Strip have never been the legal territories of any High Contracting Party.[7][8][9]

Even if the Fourth Geneva Convention had applied at one point, they certainly did not apply once the Israel transferred governmental powers to the Palestinian Authority in accordance with the 1993 Oslo Accords, since Article 6 of the convention states that the Occupying Power would only be bound to its terms "to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory....".[10]

Israel took control of the West Bank as a result of a defensive war. The language of "occupation" has allowed Palestinian spokesmen to obfuscate this history. By repeatedly pointing to "occupation," they manage to reverse the causality of the conflict, especially in front of Western audiences. Thus, the current territorial dispute is allegedly the result of an Israeli decision "to occupy," rather than a result of a war imposed on Israel by a coalition of Arab states in 1967. Former State Department Legal Advisor Stephen Schwebel, who later headed the International Court of Justice in the Hague, wrote in 1970 regarding Israel's case: "Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title."[6]

The "occupation" is not a debatable issue.

And there isn't a single country on the planet that agrees with you.

So go **** yourself!

 

[Billo_Really]

Safe.

Wrong!

Try again, maybe your luck will change?

 

[Phoenall]

Like a goldfish, you have forgotten already.

Of course you can hold on to land seized if it is seized as part of a defensive war.

There is something really retarded about a person who is shown the truth, yet insists on telling the same lie over and over and over.

I've told you on several occasions, you cannot claim self defense, when you fired the first shot. Israeli tanks rolled into Egypt to start that war. Period.

The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and Israeli government websites who support the view that the territories are not occupied argue that use of the term "occupied" in relation to Israel's control of the areas has no basis in international law or history,[6][7] and that it prejudges the outcome of negotiations. They regard the territories as "disputed" based on the following legal arguments:

No borders have been established or recognized by the parties. Armistice lines do not establish borders, and the 1949 Armistice Agreements in particular specifically stated (at Arab insistence) that they were not creating permanent or de jure borders.[6]

In line with the above idea, the Israeli government has officially stated that its position is that the territories cannot be called occupied, as no nation had clear rights to them, and there was no operative diplomatic arrangement, when Israel acquired them in June 1967.[7]

Territories are only "occupied" if they are captured in war from an established and recognized sovereign, but no state had a legitimate or recognized sovereignty over the West Bank, Gaza Strip or East Jerusalem prior to the Six-Day War.[6]

The Fourth Geneva Convention is not applicable to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, since, under its Article 2, it pertains only to "cases of…occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party" by another High Contracting party. The West Bank and Gaza Strip have never been the legal territories of any High Contracting Party.[7][8][9]

Even if the Fourth Geneva Convention had applied at one point, they certainly did not apply once the Israel transferred governmental powers to the Palestinian Authority in accordance with the 1993 Oslo Accords, since Article 6 of the convention states that the Occupying Power would only be bound to its terms "to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory....".[10]

Israel took control of the West Bank as a result of a defensive war. The language of "occupation" has allowed Palestinian spokesmen to obfuscate this history. By repeatedly pointing to "occupation," they manage to reverse the causality of the conflict, especially in front of Western audiences. Thus, the current territorial dispute is allegedly the result of an Israeli decision "to occupy," rather than a result of a war imposed on Israel by a coalition of Arab states in 1967. Former State Department Legal Advisor Stephen Schwebel, who later headed the International Court of Justice in the Hague, wrote in 1970 regarding Israel's case: "Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title."[6]

The "occupation" is not a debatable issue.

And there isn't a single country on the planet that agrees with you.

So go **** yourself!

Sorry to say but every nation that has signed for the full set of Geneva conventions does agree as it is spelt out in them. Then there is this that puts the icing on the cake

Military occupation and the laws of war[edit]

From the second half of the 18th century onwards, international law has come to distinguish between the military occupation of a country and territorial acquisition by invasion and annexation, the difference between the two being originally expounded upon by Emerich de Vattel in The Law of Nations (1758). The clear distinction has been recognized among the principles of international law since the end of the Napoleonic wars in the 19th century. These customary laws of belligerent occupation which evolved as part of the laws of war gave some protection to the population under the military occupation of a belligerent power.

The Hague Convention of 1907 further clarified and supplemented these customary laws, specifically within "Laws and Customs of War on Land" (Hague IV); October 18, 1907: "Section III Military Authority over the territory of the hostile State."[6] The first two articles of that section state:
Art. 42.Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.Art. 43.The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.
In 1949 these laws governing belligerent occupation of an enemy state's territory were further extended by the adoption of the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV). Much of GCIV is relevant to protected persons in occupied territories and Section III: Occupied territories is a specific section covering the issue.

Article 6 restricts the length of time that most of GCIV applies:
The present Convention shall apply from the outset of any conflict or occupation mentioned in Article 2.In the territory of Parties to the conflict, the application of the present Convention shall cease on the general close of military operations.In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory, by the provisions of the following Articles of the present Convention: 1 to 12, 27, 29 to 34, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59, 61 to 77, 143.

Military occupation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Phoenall]

Safe.

Wrong!

Try again, maybe your luck will change?

SAFER and no more women and children murdered from ambush by cowardly Palestinian terrorist scum

 

[Ronin]

That's correct.. It belonged to the Kingdom of Jordan before the war.. And after King Hussein had to go to war with HIS remaining Palestinians after they attacked his Capital, he decided he didn't WANT the land or the Palestinians anymore..

Ask HIM --- why he doesn't want it back..

That has nothing to do with it.

You can't move into an area and automatically have more rights than the people already living there.

people get attacked.

people win wars.

do you suggest giving texas and california to mexico?

or the rest of this country to native americans?

get over it…. or you could always stop making things up.

there has NEVER been a palestinian state…. never.

If looking at it from the point of conquest, then your right. Which means the lines of recognized geography haven't been permanently drawn anywhere.

If you mean there has never been a Palestinian state as recognized by the UN, true. But the world (UN) also recognizes there are occupied territories.

 

[Ronin]

There are roads for Israelis only.

433 was the one highway between tel aviv toward jerusalem, which passes through a part of the WB, that was restricted at times for security before 2010. It was never a jew only road.

I am not saying there have been "Jews" only roads; there have been and currently are Israeli only roads.

 

[Ronin]

Israel should invade Jordan, change its name to Palestine, and kick all the ******* unhappy arab shitheads there. Then close the ******* door and hang a nuke way up high in the sky, as a warning of what will happen if they ever leave the new Palestine to attack Israel.

"Israel should invade Jordan, change its name to Palestine, and kick all the ******* unhappy arab shitheads there. Then close the ******* door and hang a nuke way up high in the sky, as a warning of what will happen if they ever leave the new Palestine to attack Israel."

"Just tired of those ******* useless arabs trying to grab more land in the area, when EVERY ******* country they control is TOTALLY FUCKED UP ALREADY!!!!"
That's a real gem.

"And I despise muslims. Like any normal, sane person does."
Another treasure.

I'm in general heavily against war, BS but I give Israel a free pass to carpet bomb Gaza and the WB, and any other pesky arabs who won't leave them alone. Anytime. Anywhere. As often as they want.
Then there is no surprise to you when innocents on any side get taken out by acts of terrorism. Cost of doing business?

It doesn't matter if Israel has "stolen" land. Those ******* asshole arabs have more than enough land already, and they fucked all of it up. So why should anyone want to give them more land?
Actually, a common view, and this is "sane" to you?

I’m guessing you are of the thought if WWIII occurs and our global civilization radiates the Earth that a mystical being will fly down, violate all laws of known physics, wipe the destruction clean, and leave a paradise for the “saved and chosen”.

 

[Chaussette]

Israel should invade Jordan, change its name to Palestine, and kick all the ******* unhappy arab shitheads there. Then close the ******* door and hang a nuke way up high in the sky, as a warning of what will happen if they ever leave the new Palestine to attack Israel.

"Israel should invade Jordan, change its name to Palestine, and kick all the ******* unhappy arab shitheads there. Then close the ******* door and hang a nuke way up high in the sky, as a warning of what will happen if they ever leave the new Palestine to attack Israel."

"Just tired of those ******* useless arabs trying to grab more land in the area, when EVERY ******* country they control is TOTALLY FUCKED UP ALREADY!!!!"
That's a real gem.

"And I despise muslims. Like any normal, sane person does."
Another treasure.

I'm in general heavily against war, BS but I give Israel a free pass to carpet bomb Gaza and the WB, and any other pesky arabs who won't leave them alone. Anytime. Anywhere. As often as they want.
Then there is no surprise to you when innocents on any side get taken out by acts of terrorism. Cost of doing business?

It doesn't matter if Israel has "stolen" land. Those ******* asshole arabs have more than enough land already, and they fucked all of it up. So why should anyone want to give them more land?
Actually, a common view, and this is "sane" to you?

I’m guessing you are of the thought if WWIII occurs and our global civilization radiates the Earth that a mystical being will fly down, violate all laws of known physics, wipe the destruction clean, and leave a paradise for the “saved and chosen”.

No, I just think you're an asshole. Defending muslim scum, geez, go kiss a carpet already, the ones at the mosque haven't been drooled on enough.

 

[aris2chat]

433 was the one highway between tel aviv toward jerusalem, which passes through a part of the WB, that was restricted at times for security before 2010. It was never a jew only road.

I am not saying there have been "Jews" only roads; there have been and currently are Israeli only roads.

There are highways everywhere that do not have on/off ramps to every road or every town. They are designed for speed and to main destinations. Sometimes you have to take side streets to get to and from a ramp.
Yes in some areas road ramps are closed or blocked for security reasons.
Just because a highway runs nearby you does not mean it must have a ramp close to you.

Roads have been open since 2010, so why are still making incorrect claims?

You do realize that palestinians are not Israeli. That does not mean they should be free to travel within Israel. Israel does not have to give them easy access on their roads or across their borders (permanent or temporary)
US and Canada are friendly neighbors, but entry still has to go through check points to get in and out. Not every road enters Canada.
Why should palestinians have open access to all Israeli roads? Check points at every on and off ramp would slow traffic down.
If palestinians want to use the highways, let them enter Israel legally and use an Israel on/off ramp to get on the highway.
The highway makes travel for Israelis faster and safer, rather than entry and exit in and out of PA territory traveling from one Israeli town (or major settlement and will be part of Israel in a land exchange) to another.
Palestinians can build their own highway between palestinian town to speed their traffic.