The attack is expected to come in the form of missile or drone strikes against Israeli government sites
I already said this phrase last week because I don’t expect Iran to actually escalate the situation or send actual assets like the air force because they too are just as incompetent at fighting as their arab nation neighbors.
I’d love to see a skilled airforce or military take on the IDF, but afaik that doesn’t exist around Israel besides the USA.
At some point the Iran cannot conclude anything other than diplomacy with Nazis being impossible. The only reason israel can do unlimited escalation is because Genocide Joe endorses it all.
That’s a pretty huge detour to take to decide that Iran attacking Israel for an action Israel took is Joe Biden’s fault. Things are allowed to happen in the world without them being the fault of the US.
Yeah how could an American F35 throwing an American bomb and American blocking of the UN resolution be Joe Bidens fault?
I cannot figure out how Joe Biden supplying israel with all the equipment to commit this extreme violation of international law and afterwards promising to protect israel against any retaliation could possibly be relevant here.
A US company selling F35s doesn’t make them responsible for everything that F35 ever does. There were no American decision makers saying to bomb the Iranian embassy. There was a US decision maker when the US (prior administration) killed Qasem Soleimani, blame them for that. You have to see the clear daylight between killing someone with a gun and selling someone a rifle they later use for murder.
Promising to protect Israel is a tactic to prevent retaliation, obviously. If you asked the Vatican I’d bet they are against Iran retaliating. It doesn’t retroactively cause blame for Israel’s actions to shift to everyone who doesn’t want Iran to retaliate.
Blocking condemnation doesn’t cause guilt for the initial act. You can agree or disagree with that activity separate from anything else we are discussing.
And that’s my friend is called dehumanization, where you stop perceiving the whole nation as a pack of individuals and equals it with their government. Don’t fall into that trap.
Absolutely, it is absolutely astonishing and sickening how almost no one in Israel is concerned about the death toll in Palestine and the sheer level of destruction there.
Listen: I get it. But I’ve spent the last 6 months telling people that no matter how angry you get, saying this about Gaza is a call to genocide, and is an impulse we must all recognize and reject.
So I have to say it to you too. “Leveling the whole country” is always an endorsement to kill every child and otherwise powerless person in that country. Hell, two million Israelis – 20% of Israel’s population – are Palestinian.
If you’re mad about what Netanyahu and the Zionist movement are doing, call for JUSTICE, not retribution against the innocent.
Ok so maybe not levelling the whole country but delivering a plague that just drops the humans dead while keeping the country unleveled. Is that better? /S
Who is innocent in Israel? Who is actively fighting their government?
Where’s the Israeli White Rose &tc?Because I don’t consider the average German during WW2 innocent, nor do I consider the average Israeli today. They are complacent in allowing their genocidal state to exist and commit its evils.
Seriously fuck Israel, the nation has no right to exist.
Who is innocent in Israel Gaza? Who is actively fighting their government?
This is how you sound. For one, loads of people are fighting the government in Israel. But much worse, this is exactly the same reasoning used to justify the very thing you’re (rightfully) angry about
Lets just forget that the hamas founding charter has a section calling for the murder of every single jew on earth, I am sure the hamas is totally cool and not just the same autocratic and right wing bullshit as the IDF or Netanyahu.
The current charter does not, though. In fact it vaguely advocates for a two state solution and says this:
Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine. Yet, it is the Zionists who constantly identify Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial project and illegal entity.
Hamas rejects the persecution of any human being or the undermining of his or her rights on nationalist, religious or sectarian grounds. Hamas is of the view that the Jewish problem, antisemitism and the persecution of the Jews are phenomena fundamentally linked to European history and not to the history of the Arabs and the Muslims or to their heritage.
The 1988 Charter, which is certainly unreasonable in its fundamentalism with Sharia Law and is antisemitic, does not call for the extermination of all Jewish People. The 2017 Charter accepts a Two-State Solution of the 1967 Borders. Check Article 7 and 13 of the 1988 Charter to see yourself, compare it to Article 20 and 24-26 in the revised charter
The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. There are also a couple of mention through out the text of the Jews being mortal enemies of the Moslem and that it is their duty to fight and to kill the jew. The promised Day of the Judgement, the moment they are looking forward, cannot come about without an all out war of extinction between Moslems and Jews.
And who? At best you have people protesting because not all hostages were freed, Israelis aren’t doing shit to stop Israeli crimes against humanity.
True, though before October 7th there were many people protesting Bibi. And while there are not protests for this purpose some Israelis are criticising the crimes against humanity. Not enough, yes, but still.
Last I checked Palestine didn’t invade a people’s land, displace them, and run a racist apartheid state for decades, before going full on genocide.
Israel is the aggressor state.
No shit bro. Just saying this narrative of “there are no innocents” is disgusting and exactly how the worst Israelis and Zionists think of Palestinians. It’s up to you if you want to be that hateful, I’m just saying, maybe take a look in the mirror before you continue
The difference being that in Israel fighting the government might actually do something since it’s a democracy, and in Gaza fighting the government will simply get you killed for being an infidel.
Israel has been rocked by protests and strikes for the last year. Tens of thousands of Israelis are in the streets demanding an election. But lets set that aside for a second.
Try to explain your whole attitude to the TWO MILLION PALESTINIAN CITIZENS OF ISRAEL. I’m not talking about the people living under occupation. I’m talking about people with Israeli citizenship who are Palestinian. Do you want to guess how the police in Israel treat you if you’re an arab citizen and go to a protest? I’ll give you a hint: their head of police is Itmar Ben-Gvir. He was convicted of terrorism by his own country. His public position is that he would like to ethnically cleanse both Israel and the occupied territories. And he runs the national police.
Think about what you’re saying when you damn everyone in Israel because “it’s a democracy” when it’s an apartheid police state.
Really I must have missed the part in South African history where they had any blacks on their Supreme Court.
Regardless, the defining characteristic of Apartheid is rule over the uncontenting majority by the minority. That is the harm of apartheid and that the thing that makes it a crime against humanity as opposed to regular old discrimination.
That’s funny because I think the entire middle east is apartheid. Jews are only allowed to live in one small strip. They are not allowed to own land in Jordan. They are not allowed to practice their religion in Saudi Arabia. They have been ethnically cleansed from Egypt, Yemen, Iraq, and Syria.
I’m just going to answer you and @JustZ 's comment above at the same time.
What’s the hell is your point?
Generally, when someone mentions something like the existence of some admirable quality in a country facing criticism or a terrible quality in a different country, it’s irrelevant to the point at hand. It’s either to derail a conversation or terminate it.
The conversation thread is about the fact that Israelis should not be held responsible carte blanche for atrocities committed by their government, because many lack political representation and face extremely oppressive prejudice from their government.
If you’re arguing that the presence of any Arabs within power at all disproves their overall repression, in this context you’re arguing against my point that they should NOT be held responsible for the crimes of their government. Is your point that Israel Palestinians are guilty of genocide in Gaza? Think about how inane that is.
And if you’re pointing out that regionally, Jews are an oppressed group… well then what? What does the fact that Qatar and UAE and Jordon are repressive mean in this context? It is wildly off-topic, and also utterly irrelevant that Israel’s neighbors suck too. You know what? I don’t think we should send weapons to Iran or Egypt or Saudi Arabia either. That’s not exactly a hot take.
Almost everyone absolutely thinks Saudi Arabis is abhorrent, any involvement they hsve with any human rights groups is instantly identified as whitewashing and becomes a meme. Protests in Iran receieved wide global attention and support. We don’t hold Israel to a different light. It’s the same light, Israel is just one if the really bad baddies.
I don’t know that dude’s point but my point is that even though the light of democracy may seem dim right now in Israel, it’s still there and must be protected. No legitimate human rights will come from Islamic law or pan Islamism because religious law is made up by church muckity mucks as they go along, and any right they grant can be taken at their whim. Meanwhile, the good fortune of democracy on this earth is closely tied to the humanity of all mankind, and ill fight anyone that violently insists otherwise. Like it’s fine if you want to live like it’s the dark ages but don’t cross the border or shoot at boats. Maybe if the Likuds survive the next election the idea of smothering the baby in its crib might be more palatable to me. I’m not ready to feed a burgeoning democracy to Iranian far-right extremists or their proxies, just yet.
I agree with you. I’d like more democracy is Israel.
I think that people ARE going to need to reimagine what Israel is, though. People – including folks like Einstein – have been saying since it’s founding that it is fundamentally incompatible to have a multi-ethnic democratic ethnostate. It’s internally contradictory. You have to lose one of those words.
Jewish nationalists would like to lose the multi-ethnic part. Religious extremists would like to drop the democratic part (and probably the multi-ethnic part too). I’d like to drop the ethnostate. I think Israel can be a democracy that welcomes Jews AND Palestinians. But to be frank, democracy and Zionism have been looking increasingly incompatible for a long time, and a lot of folks in the US need to start recognizing that.
ALL non-Muslim religious practices are not allowed in Saudi Arabia, they hate EVERYONE else, not directed specifically at Jews. Alsp, I lived in Jordan for most of my life and have never seen any law to indicate that claim. I also tried to google that. Could you source that claim? Because if it is true, then it would be directly contradicting the Jordanian constitution.
My friend’s grandmother is a Palestinian Jew who lives in Jordan and never seems to have had any legal trouble (even in the religious marriage court).
And yes, Jews from Arab countries have been cleansed and forced to leave during this: …wikipedia.org/…/Jewish_exodus_from_the_Muslim_wo…But that was only one factor. Many simply immigrate for pull or push factors. That is not to undermine the terrible event of anyone being forced out of their home.
Finally, it’s good to remember what Israel did to those Yemeni Jews, whether expelled or leaving to build a better future:
We need to recognize that supremacy and oppression are symptoms of destructive settler-colonial Zionism. And that it needs to end. Israel is not the Jewish state Jews deserve… they deseeve much better as dignified people than to have this country (founded on violence, lies, and colonialism) drag their name in the mud and use the holocaust to justify genociding Palestinians. Jews deserve better than an undemocratic apartheid state that indoctrinate them from the cradle to the grave.
It’s baked into the definition of any primary source you might look at. For example the UN convention defines the crime of apartheid as something like “such discriminatory policies as practiced in South Africa,” etc., etc. it’s also inherent to the hallmarks of Apartheid, like, what would have been offensive to humanity about a political majority discriminating or disenfranchising itself? If they didn’t like the discrimination or disenfranchisment, they have the majority power to stop it. “As practiced in South Africa,” refers to little else if not the majority who had been systemically denied their inherent majoritarian political power.
I realize modern organizations use the word apartheid to to describe Israel and I’m sure it’s great for their fundraising. Self interested experts and thinkers say all sorts of things. Most of them, at least disinterested scholars writing in law reviews, for example, if you look closely, are saying that Israel is like Apartheid.
To the extent some make the argument that Israel is literally apartheid, they are glossing over the actual state of things in South African Apartheid that made it so offensive to humanity. Like LaFayette said “the good fortune of America is closely tied to the good fortune of all humanity.” He was talking about the idea of government of, by, and for the people, likez to be copacetic with humanity, a government must derive it’s legitimacy through the popular consent of the governed, who is represented by people chosen from among them, it means a constitutional compact, things South Africa did not have as a result of how its black majority citizens were treated by their own government’s laws. Those that defeated Apartheid speak of its downfall in terms of “gaining our democracy” and “the democratic transformation.” The day apartheid died is considered the day they had the first election afterward. Israel has free elections. Hama could host elections too if it wanted. It had an election once, then immediately cancelled all future elections, which is a crime against humanity in itself.
Also, take note, if you look closely at analysis that says Israel literally is Apartheid, they are citing work of scholars, jurists, and experts, who were doing research in comparative law. I.e., they were comparing Israel and South Africa from the starting point that, although they are alike in certain ways which are useful for legal scholars to compare in peer reviewed journals, they are materially different things. In other words, like if you decide to go click through KeepOnStalin’s non-profit link spam, check for yourself and see if the authorities they cite for their presuppositions aren’t being misrepresented, and that they aren’t going circles, i.e. B’Tselem citing HRW, HRW citing Amnesty, Amnesty citing B’Tselem, and that all of them aren’t citing unverified reports published in veritable tabloids owned by Qatar and Egypt, or directly from Hamas. They also gloss over their presupposition that Apartheid can be something a country does to non citizens. No country afaik gives full rights to non citizens.
Yes, run of the mill racial discrimination is bad. There is racial discrimination all around and it should be rooted out and made equitable. That’s where strong minoritarian rights and protections come into play, a constitution based on something other than biblical nonsense, for example.
A policy of discrimination voted on by all people is far more palatable than one arising from religious proclamation or superstition, or from a minority, such as they have in Iran.
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:
Then it goes on to list some acts. Note that it says similar to not identical to. And it says over any other racial group. Absolutely nothing in there about majority/minority status.
So where did you see this? What makes you think this?
what would have been offensive to humanity about a political majority discriminating or disenfranchising itself? If they didn’t like the discrimination or disenfranchisment, they have the majority power to stop it.
Nobody is suggesting this.
What about if the majority discriminates against a minority , who doesn’t have the political power to stop it? That is offensive to humanity, so why would you exclude this from the definition of apartheid? That’s why they wrote the definition the way they did. South Africa isn’t the only way it can be.
Then why is that explicitly not part of the definition?
“Similar” =/= identical. If all of the societal prejudice, injustice and disparity is still there but it’s 51% oppressing 49% instead of 49% oppressing 51% are you seriously saying that this is a totally different thing?
"The crime of apartheid is defined by the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as inhumane acts of a character similar to other crimes against humanity “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" .”
The other definitions are similar. Nothing about majority or minority. Nothing about having to be exactly like South Africa.
Amnesty International has analysed Israel’s intent to create and maintain a system of oppression and domination over Palestinians and examined its key components: territorial fragmentation; segregation and control; dispossession of land and property; and denial of economic and social rights. It has concluded that this system amounts to apartheid. Israel must dismantle this cruel system and the international community must pressure it to do so. All those with jurisdiction over the crimes committed to maintain the system should investigate them.
Across these areas and in most aspects of life, Israeli authorities methodically privilege Jewish Israelis and discriminate against Palestinians. Laws, policies, and statements by leading Israeli officials make plain that the objective of maintaining Jewish Israeli control over demographics, political power, and land has long guided government policy. In pursuit of this goal, authorities have dispossessed, confined, forcibly separated, and subjugated Palestinians by virtue of their identity to varying degrees of intensity. In certain areas, as described in this report, these deprivations are so severe that they amount to the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution.
B’Tselem rejects the perception of Israel as a democracy (inside the Green Line) that simultaneously upholds a temporary military occupation (beyond it). B’Tselem reached the conclusion that the bar for defining the Israeli regime as an apartheid regime has been met after considering the accumulation of policies and laws that Israel devised to entrench its control over Palestinians.
See that’s called a pin cite, even if it is 16 pages, now you’re approaching making a coherent argument instead of just spamming. They gloss right over the key part of the definition though, because they are torturing the word to force a square peg into a round hole and they have to do that because that’s how they raise money.
I agree there are similarities and useful comparisons to be drawn. Still, Amnesty literally says that all apartheid requires is a system of oppression and that’s just not correct, and that’s why when people try to force this definition onto Israel, it just comes off as anti-semitic.
I’m of the mind that if the majority has the opportunity to vote for their leadership, the situation is not like South Africa in the way that matters that is so offensive to humanity as to be a crime against it.
You are mistaken that minority rule is fundamental to Apartheid. It’s not simply ‘a system of oppression’, it is the establishment and maintaining of systematic oppression and domination of one racial group over another. Let’s look at Article II of the Apartheid Convention for one. We can also look into the definition from the Rome Statute.
<span style="color:#323232;">Article II then lists specific inhuman acts that committed in this context amount to the crime under international law of apartheid, ranging from violent ones such as murder and torture to legislative, administrative and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participating in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and deny them basic human rights and freedoms. The specific inhuman acts enumerated are:
</span>
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.
Look I didn’t invent political science and define Israel’s representative government as a democracy. Take it up with the academics, and the dictionary people for that matter.
Roughing up protesters isn’t a crime against humanity. The treatment of Arabs or Palestinians in Israel is nothing like the treatment of blacks in South Africa. There are Palestinians working in every field and industry and in all levels of government, living wherever they want, voting for whoever they want, marrying whoever they want, having kids with whoever they want. There is a Palestinian on the Israeli Supreme Court, like if you want to argue Apartheid describes certain treatment of minority noncitizens okay I can see your reasoning at least but in what concievable grounds is Israel’s treatment of Palestinian citizens of Israel substantially the same to Afrikaner treatment of blacks in South Africa? To me what you’ve said here sounds like what flat eartherism must sound like to a an astrophysicist.
It’s 12 minutes long, and in it Katie Halper points out that it’s been labeled an Apartheid state by Zionists and Afrikanners for decades. Israeli prime ministers and Nelson Mandela, academics, and human rights groups have been saying this for generations.
If you want to call it something else, feel free. But whatever you call it, it needs to end.
Also: they don’t “rough up” protesters. They disappear them. They throw them in prison and torture them. They take them away from their families indefinitely without charges or kill them for posts on social media. This is not minor ethnic repression. The head of police, as I mentioned, is a convicted terrorist.
I will watch it. I’ve seen it in my feed before but never clicked it. My education on this comes from two influential professors, one I had for constitutional law, who was an expert on constitutional history and theory and had been an envoy to South Africa to help write their new Constitution, and the other was unofficial liason between certain folks in the US government and Arafat and the PLO, which had no official relations. To me, the lack of popular consent of the governed is the sine qua non of Apartheid, that means the victims are a political but popular majority citizens of the country. Those are the things that make it so evil and so abhorrent, to me anyway, and it’s how I’ve come to understand it, both in terms of how it came to be and the reforms that ended it.
Apartheid is said to be an “aggravated form of racial discrimination.” Racial discrimination is against international law on its own, by itself. Apartheid, in which the minority political bloc purported to rule over the unconsenting majority, based solely on race, is something way, way more dastardly and offensive to humanity, mainly because it is antithetical to democratic governance, which the the only think that even leads toward peak humanity, if not the greatest human achievement.
Meanwhile, although a suspect class for which heightened scrutiny of potential racial discrimination is warranted, nationality and citizenship status are sometimes perfectly just grounds for policies that are facially neutral but discriminatory as applied. For example, how many suicide bombers have to cross the border from the same place before you restrict certain people’s rights based on national origin or immigration status, how many rockets do they have to import and launch at your people before you start inspecting their deliveries?
Still not ready to feed a democracy to Iran. Israel isn’t going to let it happen without a fight, and that will be a bloodbath that makes the entirety of the hostilities from 1948 to date look like a pleasant afternoon.
You are mistaken that minority rule is fundamental to Apartheid. It’s not simply ‘a system of oppression’, it is the establishment and maintaining of systematic oppression and domination of one racial group over another. Let’s look at Article II of the Apartheid Convention for one. We can also look into the definition from the Rome Statute or the ICERD.
Under every international definition of Apartheid, Israel is an Apartheid State.
<span style="color:#323232;">Article II then lists specific inhuman acts that committed in this context amount to the crime under international law of apartheid, ranging from violent ones such as murder and torture to legislative, administrative and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participating in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and deny them basic human rights and freedoms. The specific inhuman acts enumerated are:
</span>
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.
That’s the language you need to quote because that’s the language I’m talking about, it qualifies the whole thing. You’re reading it out. That’s not how reading law works. All words have their usual meaning. No words are superfluous.
So you’re saying the international definitions of the crime of apartheid, are irrelevant span and presupposition, when it comes to determining if Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid?
The Rome Statute [Article 7] provides that the crime against humanity of apartheid is committed when “inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, are 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”. The “special intent” element of the crime of apartheid under the Rome Statute that distinguishes it from other crimes against humanity is thus the maintenance of a regime of systematic oppression and domination.
Article II of the ICSPCA defines the crime of apartheid as:
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 practiced in southern Africa, shall apply to the following inhumane 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 recognised 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.
Try and keep up slow poke, it’s irrelevant because it’s a wall of text everyone here talking about this has already read. You don’t need to constantly link things to me that I’ve already seen.
The Rome Statute says “as practiced in South Africa.”
That means it’s about policies that are of the same character and kind as they had in South Africa.
The defining policies of Apartheid are simply not present in Israel, so you must agree you are making a stretch.
Have you? Because if you did, you’d realize “as practiced in South Africa” is not a quote found within the entire Rome Statute. In the Rome Statute, which I linked, you can find the Crime of Apartheid listed in Article 7, 2. h) as the following
“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
Unless you meant to reference Article II of the ICSPCA, which lists the crime of apartheid as the following
the term ‘the crime of apartheid’, which shall include similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as practiced in southern Africa, shall apply to the following inhumane 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:
Both, on fact every, international definition of Apartheid is about the inhumane acts for the establishment and maintaining of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination. That’s what they are talking about “the same character and kind as they had in South Africa” not your made up definition of minority rule.
The defining policies of Apartheid are overwhelmingly present in Israel, for all three of the international definitions of Apartheid.
Sure. I hope you take another look at the Amnesty report on Apartheid, along with the others. Even the B’TSelem quick Explainer does a decent job.
When in 1977, the United Nations passed the resolution inaugurating the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian people, it was asserting the recognition that injustice and gross human rights violations were being perpetrated in Palestine. In the same period, the UN took a strong stand against apartheid; and over the years, an international consensus was built, which helped to bring an end to this iniquitous system.
But we know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians; without the resolution of conflicts in East Timor, the Sudan and other parts of the world.
But in that quote he’s literally saying that the UN recognized the plight of people in Palestine and in South African apartheid, and then ended the system of apartheid.
What does that say about the system in Palestine?
This is not evidence of Nelson Mandela stating that the situation in Israel is literally apartheid.
At best it is a presuppossed, vague comparison.
Yes, it is unjust. That doesn’t mean it is Apartheid. Hey Charlie
No, that quote was also in 1997 before the second Intifada.
It is the international definitions of apartheid that show that Israel is an apartheid state.
Mandela and South African leaders after him compared the restrictions Israel placed on Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank with the treatment of Black South Africans during apartheid, framing the two issues as fundamentally about people oppressed in their homeland. Israel provided weapons systems to South Africa’s apartheid government and maintained secret military ties with it up until the mid-1980s, even after publicly denouncing apartheid.
It was Zwelivelile Mandela who directly called Israel an Apartheid State.
Addressing a large audience, Mandela said that the Nation-State Law passed in 2018 declaring Israel to be the historical homeland of the Jewish people “confirmed what we have always known to be the true character and reality of Israel: Israel is an apartheid state”.
He also outlined what had constituted apartheid for black South Africans – from the creation of bantustan reservations to land expropriation and the daily assault on dignity.
“All these characteristics were present in apartheid Israel since its inception but have now been codified and given a constitutional status and expression by the Nation-State Law.
“Apartheid Israel perpetuates statutory discrimination through the very definition by the law as a Jewish state; by doing so it renders non-Jews as second-class citizens, alternately as foreigners in the land of their birth.”
Nobody is disputing that people compare it. I’m also not disputing that there is a hyper modern converted effort to define Israel as an Apartheid state.
You’re supposed to be providing evidence that as originally understood and as codified into law, Israel is literally an apartheid state.
Citing people who made comparisons is not evidence on this point nor is citing modern sources who, I am suggesting, have been misled or miseducated.
Maybe I am he one that was miseducated. Maybe the statutory codification of the international crime of apartheid was meant to be broad enough to include Israel even though it lacks the hallmark policies of Apartheid but I am not persuaded so far.
Back to your Mandella quote, the part about the world putting an end to Apartheid, and doing things like codifying it into international law. That began in 1973. In 1969, the UN had just adopted the convention against racial discrimination.
By your edtimation, what are the distinguish features as between the racial discrimination convention and he apartheid convention?
You’re supposed to be providing evidence that as originally understood and as codified into law, Israel is literally an apartheid state.
I have, the international definitions of Apartheid listed above. As well as the documentation of multiple Human Rights Organizations, that go through those international definitions, and give exhaustive details that show exactly how Israel fits the definition of Apartheid for every international definition.
I think they are trying to quote Article II of the ICSPCA, but if they did, then they intentionally left out the rest of the Article which goes against their point.
“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 practiced in southern Africa, shall apply to the following inhumane 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: …”
I will acknowledge that when I describe the Israeli system as Apartheid, I’m using it in a colloquial sense, not a legal sense. Which I think is appropriate, because my purpose is to characterize the severity and urgency of the situation rather than prosecute the case in international court. But I can accept that it might fall short based on legal definitions (in part because Israel is familiar enough with international law that they usually take care in developing policy to try to avoid when possible making their violations easy to prosecute).
It’s a bit long, but the feature I think is useful is summed up here:
“If the Holocaust is the paradigmatic case for the crime of genocide and South Africa for that of apartheid, then the crime against the Palestinian people must be called the Nakba.”
The thesis, at least in my understanding, is that the situation is unique enough to fit poorly into the major categories we use for describing atrocities, and that it requires that we recognize it as the primary case for a novel form of ethnic oppression that incorporates elements of genocide and apartheid, but operates in a way that is ultimately unique to the specifics of this situation. I’m curious what you might think of that argument.
Honestly, I have a bone to pick with legal language.
I think it puts the cart before the horse. Law as a concept is an incredible invention, but I think we in our present often forget that it IS an invention: it’s a technology that was developed to systematize our ability to limit and remedy harm.
However we frequently ignore the fact that people will always shape their behavior to avoid consequence while looking for ways to serve their interests at the expense of the public good. And then when they do, we often act as if law is itself a kind of natural law, and if we can find no category for the behavior we abhor, that means that we must accept that they have some right to do it, as thought it’s out of our hands.
This situation is a profound demonstration of all of it. South Africa’s system of apartheid is a very useful framework for understanding the systems used to maintain Palestinians as a permanent underclass unable to gain meaningful political agency. This fact – that apartheid is a useful framework for examining the Israeli system and determining what to do about it – is true regardless of whether the system in question fulfills a definition. The definition is supposed to be useful. If you don’t think the term applies, that’s just a reflection that the definition apparently needs to be updated, because the thing the definition describes exists regardless of whether our language presently communicates it.
Language – like law – is a man-made tool that is supposed to serve us, not the other way around.
Apartheid, in which the minority political bloc purported to rule over the unconsenting majority, based solely on race
We spoke about this. We looked at the definition. The minority/majority aspect is simply not in there. In fact it says it can be done to “any other racial group,” explicitly rejecting that framework. Why are you still saying the same thing? It is totally unjustified
Jesus christ dude. If you want to discuss you need to actually engage with the points made.
The definition says it can be done to “any other racial group” - why? How can this possibly be the wording if it had to be done to the majority group?
“As practiced in South Africa.”
Again, look at the actual wording of the whole sentence:
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
It doesn’t have to be exactly the same. That’s why it says similar policies and not “identical to” or “the policies of…”
Bud…yes, similar policies against any other racial group as practiced in South Africa.
When a court of law with competent jurisdiction somewhere find someone outside of South Africa guilty of apartheid, then you have a leg to stand. Until then, there’s a reason nobody has been charged outside of South Africa, and that’s because the practices in South Africa were if a fundamentally different character than those in Israel, chiefly, based on immigration status, not race, and secondly, against non citizens, not citizens.
Bud…yes, similar policies against any other racial group as practiced in South Africa.
So not necessarily a minority vs a majority. It literally doesn’t matter and appears nowhere in the definition.
When a court of law with competent jurisdiction somewhere find someone outside of South Africa guilty of apartheid, then you have a leg to stand
The implicit idea that we can’t just read the definition and apply it, so we must wait for a court to read it for us is laughable to me. Crimes exist regardless of whether they are convicted in practice.
I thought there was hope for you. But today I’m convinced that either (1) you’re a hopeless pro-zioniat bootlicker or (2) you have some kind of psychological issue that makes you incapable of changing your mind even when provided with overwhelming evidence.
And today is the day I stop giving a fuck. I’m blocking you soon, goodbye forever. May we never meet. I don’t need more assholes to dehumanize me as a Palestinian and deny me the right to self determination and self defense in favor of a bunch of ruthless butchers.
Ps: frankly you seem quite racist. The slimy questionable lawer-type racist.
"in which the minority political bloc purported to rule over the unconsenting majority, "
to all the nice folks reading this gibberish, please know that this is flat out misinformation. @JustZ had never been able to support this with any kind of source and it is not in the legal definition of apartheid. The crime of apartheid definition is very clear and says this applies to any racial group with absolutely NOTHING about it having to be a racial minority over a majority (and by miniority here, JustZ also just means less population).
Here is the definition of apartheid according to the ICC:
The ‘crime of apartheid’ means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalised 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.
@JustZ do you know why you can never respond to this? Because your lame argument rests entirely now on your false definition of Apartheid. Once that is gone, you are forced to admit that ISRAEL IS A RACIST COLONIAL APARTHEID STATE and very little about its founding and practices is actually legal.
Don’t be the kind of law expert that enables evil by saying BS like this…
It hurts, I get it. It’s okay. You can cross that bridge.
Nah, even though no nation or individual has ever been indicted, let alone convicted, for apartheid crimes, outside of South Africa, I’m coming around to the idea that my understanding of the definition of apartheid is ill-founded. It doesn’t hurt at all but it is difficult to recognize. I’m only informed by my own education and experience, which on this were pretty on point, primary sources. I read a nice law review article this morning about the modern South African indictments under modern positive international law, but it focuses on jurisdictional and procedural rather than substantive law, since obviously they were South Africans and thus it wasn’t a new application of the substantive law.
Maybe you can help by describing the feature or features of “apartheid” under the statutory or customary international law definition of your choice that distinguishes apartheid from mere racial discrimination? What makes apartheid “aggravated” discrimination instead of regular discriminstion?Something that really gets to the meat of whether the international custom against apartheid, which led to the Rome Statute (which says in Article II “as practiced by South Africa”).
I fundamentally disagree that discrimination based on national origin and immigration status is on the same level as discrimination based on race. Every country discriminates based on national origin and immigration status; while doing so is always suspect, it is often perfectly acceptable and uncontroversial.
I also fundamentally believe that an evil policy duly enacted into law by a popular majority is less evil than the same policy forced onto the majority without consent. The latter is obviously a crime against humanity. Again, racial discrimination is already against international law.
So I’m still not ready to feed Israel to Iran and write off the only country in the middle east capable of granting legitimate human rights, and that’s the one that elects its leaders and not the one that hears voices and describes democratic ideals as infidelity to the word of Dog. I am hopeful for the Israeli people that they can and will strive toward democracy, and that is hope for humanity, since caliphates and imamates are not legitimate sources of positive law.
I’m coming around to the idea that my understanding of the definition of apartheid is ill-founded. It doesn’t hurt at all but it is difficult to recognize.
Good for you dude! It is hard to recognize but it’s better than having the wrong idea about something so important
So stupid. If they were smart, Iran’s leadership would use this opportunity to gain international support and clout by behaving like the reasonable ones while Israel is going rogue.
That’s true, but is that a wise move, geopolitically? If Iran retaliates with force, it risks escalation, because Israel will hit back, likely with the help of its powerful allies. Iran’s BRICS allies may stand by it, or they may keep a distance, not wanting to get dragged into armed conflict. Such an attack will also shift moral and media focus away from the genocide in Gaza, allowing Israel to play up external threats in its public messaging.
Its BRICS allies will support Iran if it makes its case to the UN for an international response, and it may get support from other nations which are fed up with Israel at the moment. It seems like the international order is spooked right at the moment about Israel’s and Ecuador’s attacks on embassies; it’s a good time to make this pitch. And if the UN does little to address Iran’s grievances, its leaders can play that up at home as evidence of hostility toward it by the West to undermine the pro-Western youth movement threatening their rule.
This is looking at it from the point of view of Iran’s interests. From my point of view, less bombing of things and less war is better for the world.
Well, and Russia does not have much of war resources to spare, and Syria is not exactly the biggest player in town. Yes, they do have and used poison gas on enemies, but that would probably lead to “The Crater, formerly known as Damascus”.
Lol? You’re ok with a nuclear Iran? You’re chill with having another geopolitical actor holding a gun to Europe? Maybe sit down and think things thru before you open your mouth.
You dont get to decide who has enough clout to be taken seriously. The US made it so nukes aree essential if you are not their ally. I am not okay with anyone having them, but they are there so it is fair game.
Obviously the US and Europe isn’t up to countering the genocidal lunatics in charge of Israel. How else can we stop the genocide?
Yes, nuclear proliferation is horrible, but MAD was the basis of much of the last century’s global framework for a reason. When you have a rogue nation like Israel threatening the whole region, I don’t know a better alternative. Do you?
Imagine if Hamas actually had put the work in. Probably would have accomplished more than spending the last 20 years doing nothing but digging tunnels.
Or you know, they could have had elections this entire time. Used the money Qatar gives them to build something for the Palestinian people besides forcing their citizens to commit terrorist attacks.
For all your bitching in your post history about people putting words in your mouth, you sure are quick to misrepresent my position.
So, in your opinion, how do you stop the genocidal and regionally destabilizing actions of Israel? How would you fight the psychopaths running that country?
What? Hamas didn’t reject ceasefires. Unless you are referring to israel wanting to hold a small 6 week pause in exchange for all the hostages and then continue their Genocide. Surely nobody is stupid enough to take that moronic offer seriously. Especially because israel would violate the it directly as they have already done during the previous one.
It’s a shame neither Hamas nor their online supporters care enough about the Palestinian people to accept conditions for a ceasefire.
40 hostages to end a genocide? The fact that you guys are refusing such a deal makes me think the extinction of the Palestinian people is more your guys’ goal than Israel’s at this point.
So just surrending to the genocidal maniacs is the best way to stop the genocide.
neither Hamas, nor their supporters (paid or otherwise) have an interest in seeing this end.
So Israel could completely subvert Hamas’s plans by simply refraining from killing the children, women, civilians, journalists, aid workers, then allowing the aid convoys in with their food so people aren’t starving any more, rebuild the health care infrastructure they destroyed, liberate the children and civilians they are holding captive under military tribunals, returning stolen land to the Palestinians and tear down the apartheid apparatus. How could they lose with that strategy? Seems like a win for everyone involved, and you can defeat Hamas along with all the other benefits!
For some reason, I don’t think the genocidal maniacs in Israel want that solution.
As somebody very interested in helping the Palestinian people get respect and dignity from all their neighbors, I look forward to Qatar cutting funding of Hamas (and getting the money to the Palestinian people directly).
That money is going to be needed to rebuild, and more importantly, start a provisional government.
Of course not, but the West Bank seems like the perfect place to start the process for Statehood. Kick out all of the thieving, scumbag settlers that have invaded the Palestinian lands, put the IDF agents up for trial that enabled the theft. Surely you can support that, right?
I just want to be able to show link back to this conversation at some point to show that WamGams actually cares for the Palestinian people and you aren’t just talking out of your ass.
Once again, fuck Israel. I hope anyone who supports this genocide (anyone serving with IDF included) suffers the same violence as the Palestinians living under this genocide.
English either isn’t your first language or you just habitually change what people say to fit your own narrative.
I think it’s the second option, since that is how most pro-hamas people act. They lie about what their critics say and then generally sign off with wishing violence on Israel.
Not once have you said you want Hamas to lose power over Palestinians. Each time I said it will happen you have pushed back by saying Hamas has nothing to do with Israel.
If you aren’t Pro-Hamas, please outline how so now.
Come on, just say “Fuck Isreal,” then we’ll know you are real and not some propaganda bot. Just say it, Fuck Israel, Fuck Israel, Fuck Israel. I’m sure you can say it, right?
How did I wish for the genocide of the Jews? By saying I hope the same as the Palestinians? So you agree that the Palestinians are suffering from genocide?
You have been pretty Pro-Hamas thus far, I’m shocked that you are now against the wholesale murder of Palestinians but I am glad our conversation has been helping you grow as a person and seeing that Hamas are evil.
By the way, I just read through your profile. I have a feeling that the paid propaganda accusation may be projection? You seem to accuse a lot of people of it. Your victim complex is pretty heavy too.
Maybe all those downvotes you’re getting are because you have extreme, shitty positions?
Of course, why wouldn’t you read through a guy’s post history, see him talk about how he likes bang bus, and immediately think to yourself, “this guy is the Israeli intelligence Agency”? You would have to be a sane person to think otherwise.
But in all serious, I never accused you, I said you should be paid for your work. You have a talent here and I think you could go far in a caliphate.
I think it helps to remember that these decisions are often made by people who have very specific goals that aren’t aligned with the nation itself. Generals who want to get promoted to higher levels, government ministers looking to curry favor with their patrons.
You might be right, but they’re likely not trying to improve Iran’s standing. They’re looking to each improve their own. Also, most people in these positions, in my observation ARE very dumb.
After America killed their general, they let us know when they’d be attacking. They didn’t want any Americans being killed but they didn’t want to look like punks. They knew we wouldn’t escalate.
Making that assumption with Israel is stupid. If they kill one person, Iran is going to get bombed. Israel doesn’t back down. With the recent riots in Iran, the government may collapse.
Attempts have been made, there will be a gradual push but energy for such a rebellion hasn’t got the momentum. It’ll take a little while yet for those who pushed in recent years to be replaced by those with no fear.
What I struggle with the most is how the West just shrugged shoulders when Israel hit embassies in foreign countries.
If this has happened in any other country/embassy the international outcry would have been much bigger. Those double standards which we apply to international politics are despicable. And this also creates a sense of impunity in Israel and we all see what that leads to.
How can you preach morale when you yourself are wicked?
Hmm, now replace Iran with the USA, and tell me how would you feel if someone has bombed your embassy and killed a bunch of its employees? Would you still tell us that the US should not retaliate?
Iran is not the United States. We have the military might to strike anywhere in the world. We can invade any country in the world. Iran can’t do any of those things. I get why they want to strike back but strategically it’s a bad move. I think they should pitch their case to the UN. Israel should not have attacked their consulate. It wasn’t an embassy that was attacked. Hell I support Israel but I can’t defend attacking the consulate. I won’t even attempt to defend that.
Iran isn’t an Arab nation, nor Afghanistan or a plethora of other countries we’ve fought. Your point stands though. That’s why they revert to terrorism.
I think we should have allied with Iran to fight isis
Hmmm, you realise that your actions have consequences, right?
If you oppress people for decades and then act surprised when they strike back, or when you strike a foreign embassy in a foreign country, you can’t really expect to get a carte blanche for all your shit, you know.
And honestly Netanyahu is doing all possible to prolong this war, otherwise he is toast and hopefully imprisoned toast for all the shit he has done.
Regarding Iran, think about, how would you feel if Iran has bombed your consulate in let’s say Armenia and killed a bunch of people? But at this point I highly doubt you are capable of critical thinking and/or human empathy.
I mean both of you are correct. I find it difficult to say that Iran would be wrong to retaliate. They have all the right in the world to do so.
Would it be a wise decision? I don’t think so. A war against Israel wouldn’t be beneficial for them. But if they start one, they are fully within their rights.
Add comment