Why does israel get a free pass when it comes to apartheid?

[Victory67]

It is dead but shouldn't have been because all changes to it were illegal. So if Israel wants to go by the San Remo resolutions it is perfectly within its rights to do so.

If Israel is going to follow the San Remo resolutions it also has to protect Arab civil rights in the West Bank. So far it has failed miserably in this endeavor.

 

[MHunterB]

"Any settlement built on confiscated private land is illegal. This is what the 4th GC states. "

So you DO understand that the ethnic cleansing of East Jerusalem by the Jordanians in '49 was illegal and a crime against humanity. That's a start........

 

[Victory67]

"Any settlement built on confiscated private land is illegal. This is what the 4th GC states. "

So you DO understand that the ethnic cleansing of East Jerusalem by the Jordanians in '49 was illegal and a crime against humanity. That's a start........

Yes, Israel's and Jordan's committing ethnic cleansing of unwanted peoples during and after the 1948 War was a crime.

 

[RoccoR]

Sweet_Caroline, Victory67, et al,

I think there is some confusion behind the San Remo Convention. The Convention gave no clear advantage to either Jews or non-Jews. It protected the rights of both cultural divisions.

(COMMENT)

There is nothing remaining of the San Remo Agreement that could be considered enforceable today. It was an attempt to at reconstituting their national home in that territory where the Allied Powers drew a historical connection to the Jewish people. No one envisioned the Arab would raise the specter of a Second Holocaust so soon after the first (the first Nazi Holocaust ending in November 1945; and the second pledged by Arab Palestinians in February 1948).

The San Remo Agreement, today, is nothing more than a dusty old artifact, on the shelf of a musty museum. But at one time, it was as important to the history of man as any of the codexes written by Leonardo da Vinci. It was a moment in time when the Powers came together and said, we - in the name of humanity - need to reach-out and save this culture and its people from further harm and its demise.

Most Respectfully,
R

[MENTION=44172]Sweet_Caroline[/MENTION] seems to think the rights afforded to the Jews in the San Remo Conference are still very much alive today. But for some reason she thinks the protections for non-Jewish rights in Palestine, set forth in San Remo, are now null and void.

Its a very contradictory position and I fail to understand how its logical.

It was illegal to go against the resolutions at the San Remo conference. The Jewish people's right is protected by law. Therefore the West Bank settlements are legal not only from San Remo resolutions giving the land to the Jews but also because the land was won in a defensive war. I do not think the protection for non-Jewish rights are null and void and they aren't.

(COMMENT)

Of course the documentation (link supra) is open for your examination, but essentially the Allied Powers.

• The terms of the mandates in respect of the above territories will be formulated by the Principal Allied Powers and submitted to the Council of the League of Nations for approval.

• Turkey hereby undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article [132 of the Treaty of Sevres] to accept any decisions which may be taken in this connection.

• The High Contracting Parties agree that Syria and Mesopotamia shall, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22, Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations), be provisionally recognized as independent States, subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The boundaries of the said States will be determined, and the selection of the Mandatories made, by the Principal Allied Powers.

• The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 8, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

Essentially, once the Covenant and Mandate were approved and in place, within the parameters of these key points. The San Remo Agreement was fulfilled.

Now, there are questions as to what it means when it says: "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." And this is language that was included in nearly every important document there after.

Even as the San Remo Agreement faded away, the terms and conditions set down in the San Remo Agreement lied on in the Covenant and Mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Victory67]

Sweet_Caroline, Victory67, et al,

I think there is some confusion behind the San Remo Convention. The Convention gave no clear advantage to either Jews or non-Jews. It protected the rights of both cultural divisions.

Essentially, once the Covenant and Mandate were approved and in place, within the parameters of these key points. The San Remo Agreement was fulfilled.

Now, there are questions as to what it means when it says: "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." And this is language that was included in nearly every important document there after.

Even as the San Remo Agreement faded away, the terms and conditions set down in the San Remo Agreement lied on in the Covenant and Mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R

They fail to understand that the San Remo Conference, the Balfour Declaration, and the Mandate for Palestine are now dead agreements.

Even more striking is that they think that the promises to the Jews must be respected but the guaruntees to non-Jews can be ignored.

It is such attituded that breeds resentment and hostility towards Israel.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

Sweet_Caroline, Victory67, et al,

I think there is some confusion behind the San Remo Convention. The Convention gave no clear advantage to either Jews or non-Jews. It protected the rights of both cultural divisions.

Essentially, once the Covenant and Mandate were approved and in place, within the parameters of these key points. The San Remo Agreement was fulfilled.

Now, there are questions as to what it means when it says: "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." And this is language that was included in nearly every important document there after.

Even as the San Remo Agreement faded away, the terms and conditions set down in the San Remo Agreement lied on in the Covenant and Mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R

They fail to understand that the San Remo Conference, the Balfour Declaration, and the Mandate for Palestine are now dead agreements.

Even more striking is that they think that the promises to the Jews must be respected but the guaruntees to non-Jews can be ignored.

It is such attituded that breeds resentment and hostility towards Israel.

Dead? Only if Israel wants to accept they are dead

And you have yet to prove that promises to non-Jews are ignored.

 

[Victory67]

Dead? Only if Israel wants to accept they are dead

And you have yet to prove that promises to non-Jews are ignored.

Israel isn't the arbeter of which international laws are and aren't still in effect.

They surely don't get to pick and choose which parts of laws are to be respected and which are to be ignored.

As for the violations of Arab civil rights in the West Bank, anyone with an internet connection knows all about that.

The settlements, the land confiscations, the walls, the curfews, the demolitions, are all evidence of a discriminatory regime in the West Bank that treats Jews like citizens and non-Jews like dirt.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

Dead? Only if Israel wants to accept they are dead

And you have yet to prove that promises to non-Jews are ignored.

Israel isn't the arbeter of which international laws are and aren't still in effect.

They surely don't get to pick and choose which parts of laws are to be respected and which are to be ignored.

As for the violations of Arab civil rights in the West Bank, anyone with an internet connection knows all about that.

The settlements, the land confiscations, the walls, the curfews, the demolitions, are all evidence of a discriminatory regime in the West Bank that treats Jews like citizens and non-Jews like dirt.

Awww isn't Israel great not to enforce the Resolutions of 1922.

Settlements are legal as the West Bank was won in a defensive war. Perhaps you didn't know that?

The wall at least keeps the suicide bombing to nil. Good job there.

Curfews - well I guess when Israel has terrorism in its midst the curfews are a good thing.

Demolitions - yeah, that's a bummer. A Jewish home was demolished just yesterday. There are reasons for demolitions. Happens in every country if you build on land without permission.

 

[Victory67]

Dead? Only if Israel wants to accept they are dead

And you have yet to prove that promises to non-Jews are ignored.

Israel isn't the arbeter of which international laws are and aren't still in effect.

They surely don't get to pick and choose which parts of laws are to be respected and which are to be ignored.

As for the violations of Arab civil rights in the West Bank, anyone with an internet connection knows all about that.

The settlements, the land confiscations, the walls, the curfews, the demolitions, are all evidence of a discriminatory regime in the West Bank that treats Jews like citizens and non-Jews like dirt.

Awww isn't Israel great not to enforce the Resolutions of 1922.

Settlements are legal as the West Bank was won in a defensive war. Perhaps you didn't know that?.

The settlements are illegal as per the 4th Geneva Conventions. [MENTION=25033]RoccoR[/MENTION]

Well, at least those built on confiscated property and supposed "state" land.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

Israel isn't the arbeter of which international laws are and aren't still in effect.

They surely don't get to pick and choose which parts of laws are to be respected and which are to be ignored.

As for the violations of Arab civil rights in the West Bank, anyone with an internet connection knows all about that.

The settlements, the land confiscations, the walls, the curfews, the demolitions, are all evidence of a discriminatory regime in the West Bank that treats Jews like citizens and non-Jews like dirt.

Awww isn't Israel great not to enforce the Resolutions of 1922.

Settlements are legal as the West Bank was won in a defensive war. Perhaps you didn't know that?.

The settlements are illegal as per the 4th Geneva Conventions. [MENTION=25033]RoccoR[/MENTION]

Well, at least those built on confiscated property and supposed "state" land.

Jesus, why don't you change your username to 4th Geneva Convention.

Settlements are not illegal as they are built (by Palestinian bricklayers, carpenters, electricians, plumbers etc) on land won in a defensive war. If the land was gained in an attacking war and Israel moved its population into that area then they would be illegal. That is the third time in the last two days I have typed that. You certainly are a one-trick pony.

 

[Victory67]

Jesus, why don't you change your username to 4th Geneva Convention.

Settlements are not illegal as they are built (by Palestinian bricklayers, carpenters, electricians, plumbers etc) on land won in a defensive war. If the land was gained in an attacking war and Israel moved its population into that area then they would be illegal. That is the third time in the last two days I have typed that. You certainly are a one-trick pony.

How land is won in a war is irrelevent. All Occupied Land is covered by the 4th Geneva Conventions, which Israel signed.

Why you keep ignoring this is very odd. You ignore the 4th Geneva Conventions which Israel signed and claims to abide by, but you constantly wave the San Remo resolutions even though Israel never mentions them nor do they claim to abide by them.

Very odd indeed.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

The land is not occupied but disputed. If it were occupied it would have been under different circumstances but Israel won it in a defensive war and until some negotiations are brought about the land is still disputed.

Goodnight - we can carry on tomorrow although hopefully you will have seen a bit of sense by then.

 

[Victory67]

The land is not occupied but disputed. If it were occupied it would have been under different circumstances but Israel won it in a defensive war and until some negotiations are brought about the land is still disputed.

Goodnight - we can carry on tomorrow although hopefully you will have seen a bit of sense by then.

"Disputed" is not a legal category.

The land is Occupied Territory, as per the 4th Geneva Conventions which Israel is a signatory to. [MENTION=25033]RoccoR[/MENTION] will surely agree with this.

And by the way, the San Remo resolutions are no longer valid as they have never been registered with the United Nations. No treaty is valid until it is registered with the UN.

 

[Quadravius]

Victory67, ive read your posts, and you seem to be one of the few in this topic that has their head screwed on properly.

Most people are in the "israel can do no wrong" bunch. If they were throwing black babies off roof tops, most people would still support them. They'd use "Oy vey! holocaust" - that gives israel the right to get away with murdering anyone they want to. Which sums up the argument ive heard from quite a few people here.

I know for a fact most of the support from the "israel can do no wrong" bunch is 100% racial. And these people are some of the most vicious white supremacists there is.

 

[Victory67]

Victory67, ive read your posts, and you seem to be one of the few in this topic that has their head screwed on properly.

Most people are in the "israel can do no wrong" bunch. If they were throwing black babies off roof tops, most people would still support them.

I know for a fact most of the support from the "israel can do no wrong" bunch is 100% racial.

I don't believe it is racial. I believe it is a combination of religious, ethnic, and nationalist chauvinism combined with a bit of brainwashing and willful ignorance. And with a good helping of dishonesty.

That's why they give Israel a free pass when it comes to their discriminatory policies. Its a very entrenched state of mind.

 

[Quadravius]

I don't believe it is racial. I believe it is a combination of religious, ethnic, and nationalist chauvinism combined with a bit of brainwashing and willful ignorance. And with a good helping of dishonesty.

That's why they give Israel a free pass when it comes to their discriminatory policies. Its a very entrenched state of mind.

I used to think "jewish" was just a religion, but I learned they actually use that to describe a racial/ethnic group. A lot of jews arent even religious in the usa, but they still maintain their "jewish" heritage. Discrimination toward someone of a different ethnicity = racism. The nazis were called racist for killing jews, even though germans and jews are both white people.

Also they say being jewish means being born from a jewish mother, but I know a black man who had a white jewish mother, and a black father, and they didn't accept him as being a jew. That seems racist to me.

 

[toastman]

I don't believe it is racial. I believe it is a combination of religious, ethnic, and nationalist chauvinism combined with a bit of brainwashing and willful ignorance. And with a good helping of dishonesty.

That's why they give Israel a free pass when it comes to their discriminatory policies. Its a very entrenched state of mind.

I used to think "jewish" was just a religion, but I learned they actually use that to describe a racial/ethnic group. A lot of jews arent even religious in the usa, but they still maintain their "jewish" heritage. Discrimination toward someone of a different ethnicity = racism. The nazis were called racist for killing jews, even though germans and jews are both white people.

The Germans were called anti - semitic you moron.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Victory67, ive read your posts, and you seem to be one of the few in this topic that has their head screwed on properly.

Most people are in the "israel can do no wrong" bunch. If they were throwing black babies off roof tops, most people would still support them. They'd use "Oy vey! holocaust" - that gives israel the right to get away with murdering anyone they want to. Which sums up the argument ive heard from quite a few people here.

I know for a fact most of the support from the "israel can do no wrong" bunch is 100% racial. And these people are some of the most vicious white supremacists there is.

You're the one who started this topic, so you should know that if you ever visit Israel in the future, you will see Arab doctors, nurses, professors, university students, etc. Therefore, the very title of this thread is misleading. Of course, I'm talking about Israel proper here, and not the West Bank.
As for black vs. white, there are many Ethiopian black Jews in Israel. The last Miss Israel was black. This subject has nothing to do with white supremacy.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

I don't believe it is racial. I believe it is a combination of religious, ethnic, and nationalist chauvinism combined with a bit of brainwashing and willful ignorance. And with a good helping of dishonesty.

That's why they give Israel a free pass when it comes to their discriminatory policies. Its a very entrenched state of mind.

I used to think "jewish" was just a religion, but I learned they actually use that to describe a racial/ethnic group. A lot of jews arent even religious in the usa, but they still maintain their "jewish" heritage. Discrimination toward someone of a different ethnicity = racism. The nazis were called racist for killing jews, even though germans and jews are both white people.

Also they say being jewish means being born from a jewish mother, but I know a black man who had a white jewish mother, and a black father, and they didn't accept him as being a jew. That seems racist to me.

That's an interesting case you brought up. If some Rabbi rejected that black man, that was wrong. He should go to a different Rabbi. Technically, he's Jewish.

 

[Quadravius]

As for black vs. white, there are many Ethiopian black Jews in Israel. The last Miss Israel was black. This subject has nothing to do with white supremacy.

Yeah, well the usa has a black president, but that doesnt really make racial tensions any better. It makes things worse because white people are pissed and starting to be even more aggressively racist toward black people.

Last I head israel was getting rid of its black refugees and shipping them to sweden.

Sweden accepts dozens of Eritrean asylum seekers from Israel - National Israel News | Haaretz