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

[ForeverYoung436]

Nope.

Your side.

People who are competent to do such things.

Assuming you can find any.

That was an 'implicit'... an 'understood'... a 'gimme'... now... are we done playing 3rd-grade recess-yard Distraction Games?

Palestine will file charges iof no peace agreement is made.

Give it about a year. As a response Israel will annex the settlement blocks and pull back to the Seperation Barrier, affectively giving the Palestinians 91.5% of the West Bank, which ain't bad.

The Palestinians were offered that deal in the past and refused it. What makes you think that things will be different in the future?

 

[Kondor3]

Nope.

Your side.

People who are competent to do such things.

Assuming you can find any.

That was an 'implicit'... an 'understood'... a 'gimme'... now... are we done playing 3rd-grade recess-yard Distraction Games?

Palestine will file charges iof no peace agreement is made.

Give it about a year. As a response Israel will annex the settlement blocks and pull back to the Seperation Barrier, affectively giving the Palestinians 91.5% of the West Bank, which ain't bad.

The Palestinians were offered that deal in the past and refused it. What makes you think that things will be different in the future?

Further still, what makes you think that the Israelis are willing to ACCEPT such a state of affairs, after Intifada I and II and the Gaza War... too much blood has been spilt to go back to that now, methinks... although, of course, I could be wrong.

 

[Kondor3]

Nope.

Your side.

People who are competent to do such things.

Assuming you can find any.

That was an 'implicit'... an 'understood'... a 'gimme'... now... are we done playing 3rd-grade recess-yard Distraction Games?

Palestine will file charges iof no peace agreement is made.

Give it about a year. As a response Israel will annex the settlement blocks and pull back to the Seperation Barrier, affectively giving the Palestinians 91.5% of the West Bank, which ain't bad.

Talk... talk... talk...

I'm sure the Israelis are just a-tremblin' in their little booties...

 

[Victory67]

The Palestinians were offered that deal in the past and refused it. What makes you think that things will be different in the future?

Offer? It won't be an offer.

Israel will simply unilaterally withdraw to the Seperation Barrier, leave a few thousand troops in the Jordan Valley, annex everything east of the barrier, and call it a day.

How Palestine chooses to respond to this new situation will be their business.

Is Israel willing to take such an action without a peace treaty with Palestine?

You bet.

 

[Victory67]

Talk... talk... talk...

I'm sure the Israelis are just a-tremblin' in their little booties...

Trembling? Why would they tremble?

This is something Israel would choose to do on their own.

The Seperation Barrier is a Plan B border, incase peace talks with Palestine fail.

 

[Phoenall]

So when are you giving your land back to the Indians? Or are YOU happy living in an apartheid state where Indians are segregated to reservations?

American Indians can live anywhere they like.

Unlike Palestinians under Israeli rule.

That is the fault of the Geneva conventions that state that occupying forces can take military action to defend its citizens. The simplest of actions would remedy the situation, sue for peace that is mutually acceptable and the IDF will leave the west bank. But beware trying to start belligerence again as then Israel would come down hard on the Palestinians in line with the Geneva conventions.

 

[Phoenall]

American Indians shouldn't have been put in reservations in the first place. Alcoholism and unemployment is rampant among them. As for the Palestinians, what's your beef? That they can't flood Israel?

I don't support Apartheid in the West Bank. That's my beef.

Then take it up with the P.A. who are in control there and ask them why they institute apartheid. Don't blame Israel for working within the rules detailed in the Geneva conventions.

 

[Phoenall]

There is no apartheid in the West Bank. Period. Anyone saying there is, is a fantastic liar.

Seperate roads.

Seperate cities, towns, villages.

Discriminatory land confiscation and allocation policies.

Discriminatory curfews and collective punishment.

Discriminatory allocation of resources.

Preventing people from returning to their lands.

Disregarding of the law for Jews and not Arabs.

This is all Apartheid.

No it is defensive occupation along the lines spelt out in the Geneva conventions. If you want to see apartheid look at any Islamic nation and see how they treat non muslims.

 

[Victory67]

No it is defensive occupation along the lines spelt out in the Geneva conventions. If you want to see apartheid look at any Islamic nation and see how they treat non muslims.

The Nazis used the "defense" excuse to justify the Nuremberg Laws.

The Afrikaners used the "defense" excuse to justify Apartheid.

You can't use the defense excuse to justify Apartheid.

Well, you can, but everyone is going to laugh at you.

 

[Phoenall]

If you continue to believe in the truth of such charges, file indictments in front of the United Nations and in front of the International Criminal Court...

Until you're successful in such things, the charges and specifications, having been successfully set aside in the past, are once again set aside, with prejudice.

You want me personally to file charges against Israel with the ICC for the crime of Apartheid?

yes it is your civil duty and your right to do so, just send them an email detailing what you believe to be the situation and wait their reply. They might invite you to give your grievance in person to the full UNGC on an all expenses paid trip, and explain in full why you are wrong in your accusations. The meeting could be televised all around the world so that every person could see a complete moron get ripped a new one in regards to false accusations of apartheid in Israel.

 

[Victory67]

Then take it up with the P.A. who are in control there and ask them why they institute apartheid. Don't blame Israel for working within the rules detailed in the Geneva conventions.

Israel controls more than 60% of the WB, and has imposed Apartheid there, in contravention of the Geneva Conventions.

 

[Kondor3]

Then take it up with the P.A. who are in control there and ask them why they institute apartheid. Don't blame Israel for working within the rules detailed in the Geneva conventions.

Israel controls more than 60% of the WB, and has imposed Apartheid there, in contravention of the Geneva Conventions.

No Apartheid exists, at law.

Otherwise, any of several world bodies would have brought such charges and made them stick.

No such thing has happened.

 

[Phoenall]

Nope.

Your side.

People who are competent to do such things.

Assuming you can find any.

That was an 'implicit'... an 'understood'... a 'gimme'... now... are we done playing 3rd-grade recess-yard Distraction Games?

Palestine will file charges iof no peace agreement is made.

Give it about a year. As a response Israel will annex the settlement blocks and pull back to the Seperation Barrier, affectively giving the Palestinians 91.5% of the West Bank, which ain't bad.

They already have over the last 46 years and been told that their accusations are not valid.

In a years time you will be tripping out the same ISLAMONAZI lies and Palestine will be getting even smaller. They could have had 99.9% back in the day when Arafat the boy lover refused to talk peace. At best now they could realistically expect to more that 60% of the original Palestinian land allocated under UN res 181

 

[Kondor3]

Time for a little review of the facts, from last night, including the substantive operative text of the Convention...

"...According to the law that you cited, it is an act of Apartheid to prevent someone from being able to return to their land of residence...

1. their land of residence is where they are now

2. any other large-scale land transfers occurred prior to the effective date of the Convention

"...Its an act of Apartheid to prevent marriages between certain ethnicities and nationalities..."

That is not what the Convention says.

Israeli Marriage Laws are religious rather than racial or ethnic or citizen-focused in nature, and they closely mirror Islamic Marriage Laws of the region which are also still operative.

Anything happening within Palestinian jurisdiction is the responsibility of the Palestinians.

Israeli Law applies to Israeli citizens.

The Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are not Israeli citizens.

"...It is an act of Apartheid to limit where Palestinians can go and where they can live..."

Within the West Bank and Gaza, it is the Palestinians themselves who determine who may go where.

The Israelis have the right to decide who may travel on Israeli soil and who may not.

The Israelis have the right to decide who may reside on Israeli soil and who may not.

The United States reserves those same rights to themselves.

As does virtually every other country on the face of the planet.

"...It is an act of Apartheid to confiscate Arab land and give it to Jews."

The one area where you may have a sliver of legitimacy to stand upon, in connection with land expropriated since the Convention became operative in 1976, anyway.

One out of four... you're battin' .250 at best... and that was a weak blooper that slipped through the third baseman's glove and dribbled into left field.

I can craft a Convention saying that Land Grabbing is 'Apartheid', but that doesn't make it so.

And, in reality, that's all this is... Land Grabbing... and, come to think of it... most of that occurred prior to the effective date of the Convention.

Somehow, I don't think ex post facto is operative within International Law, any more than it is within the realm of United States law.

And, given that Muslim-Arab citizens of Israel are treated differently than their hostile brethren, that defuses 99% of claims pertaining to race and ethnicity anyway, and allows the focus to remain where it truly is - upon dealing with an aggressive, militant and entirely hostile neighbor-population in close proximity to and posing a great danger to its (Israel's) own citizenry.

Oh, and, by the way, is Israel a signatory to that Convention and has it ratified that Convention?

If not, then it is not bound by the restraints of the Convention anyway, and this is all moot.

But, in any event, here's the actual operative text of the Convention, just to be clear...

=======================================

International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, G.A. res. 3068 (XXVIII)), 28 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 30) at 75, U.N. Doc. A/9030 (1974), 1015 U.N.T.S. 243, entered into force July 18, 1976.

On file at the University of Minnesota website:

------------------

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.

...

University of Minnesota Human Rights Library

 

[Victory67]

No Apartheid exists, at law.

Otherwise, any of several world bodies would have brought such charges and made them stick.

No such thing has happened.

Charges are forthcoming, if no peace deal is signed.

 

[Phoenall]

The Palestinians were offered that deal in the past and refused it. What makes you think that things will be different in the future?

Offer? It won't be an offer.

Israel will simply unilaterally withdraw to the Seperation Barrier, leave a few thousand troops in the Jordan Valley, annex everything east of the barrier, and call it a day.

How Palestine chooses to respond to this new situation will be their business.

Is Israel willing to take such an action without a peace treaty with Palestine?

You bet.

Lets just say that Israel does not have to do anything but keep putting their proposals on the table for discussion. If the P.A. keep refusing then they will be the ones facing the UN and the rest of the world. The offers have been made and the ball is now in the P.A.'s court, what ever the outcome Israel has the moral high ground due to their not making any pre conditions. While hamas is employing terrorism to intimidate the Israeli's the IDF will be in the west bank defending from any possible attacks. Read the Geneva conventions and UN res 242 for the explanation of this, and see how until all acts of belligerence cease for 1 whole year Israel can still occupy Palestine.

 

[Phoenall]

Talk... talk... talk...

I'm sure the Israelis are just a-tremblin' in their little booties...

Trembling? Why would they tremble?

This is something Israel would choose to do on their own.

The Seperation Barrier is a Plan B border, incase peace talks with Palestine fail.

Like all your other scenarios this one is not thought out, why would Israel move back to a position that would mean instant destruction. By just keeping the pressure up they can force the people to force the P.A. to accept a mutually agreed peace and borders. Even the arab league has washed their hands on the Palestinians after refusing to talk peace for so long.

 

[Phoenall]

No it is defensive occupation along the lines spelt out in the Geneva conventions. If you want to see apartheid look at any Islamic nation and see how they treat non muslims.

The Nazis used the "defense" excuse to justify the Nuremberg Laws.

The Afrikaners used the "defense" excuse to justify Apartheid.

You can't use the defense excuse to justify Apartheid.

Well, you can, but everyone is going to laugh at you.

You don't know what you are talking about little boy, the Geneva conventions spell it out which is why your ISLAMONAZI lies have no effect. The UN has stated that there is no apartheid, the Hague has stated there is no apartheid, the world has stated there is no apartheid. Yet silly little boys like you know better than all the INTERNATIONAL LAW JUDGES that it is apartheid because you cant understand the law.

 

[Victory67]

Like all your other scenarios this one is not thought out, why would Israel move back to a position that would mean instant destruction. By just keeping the pressure up they can force the people to force the P.A. to accept a mutually agreed peace and borders. Even the arab league has washed their hands on the Palestinians after refusing to talk peace for so long.

If a new border along the Seperation Barrier would mean Israel's instant destruction, why did they choose that route?

You're appreciation for Israeli's military and defense capabilities, and ability to select a defensable border, is pretty lacking.

Israel chose the route of the Seperation Barrier as a secure eastern border, in leu of a peace treaty with Palestine.

 

[Victory67]

You don't know what you are talking about little boy, the Geneva conventions spell it out which is why your ISLAMONAZI lies have no effect. The UN has stated that there is no apartheid, the Hague has stated there is no apartheid, the world has stated there is no apartheid. Yet silly little boys like you know better than all the INTERNATIONAL LAW JUDGES that it is apartheid because you cant understand the law.

The UN has never stated that there is no Apartheid in the West Bank.

The Hague has never stated there is no Apartheid in the West Bank.

You should stop the AshkeNazi lies.