Current WAR CRIMES Israel - Hamas - Hizbullah - Houthis

[jason_recliner]

While some on here are triggered, with much consternation, whinging, and wringing of hands, by theoretical war crimes that might possibly potentially happen one day in the future...

Two more UNIFIL peacekeepers injured in Israeli fire on southern Lebanon base​

UNIFIL says two of its troops have been injured in explosions near an observation tower in southern Lebanon, the result of continued Israeli fire at their position. UN officials also voiced concern that an Israeli offensive in northern Gaza might affect the second phase of a polio vaccination campaign.


https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10...keepers-injured-in-southern-lebanon/104464592

 

[Jazny]

Israel has a litany of laws that constitute apartheid, which began with the JNF law and continued developing laws to oppress since then.

What do you think apartheid means? It's not just any racially discriminatory policy. Discriminatory policies are still in place all over the world, but that doesn't necessarily mean the countries that have discriminatory policies are responsible for apartheid.

The JNF was originally set up to encourage Jewish migration, the mens rae aspect of apartheid would be pretty hard to make the case that the organisation was designed with "the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them”.

Regardless, lands owned by the JNF are managed by the ILA, which cannot discriminate based on race according to Israeli law. Israel's supreme court in the 2000s ruled that Arabs have equal rights to lands controlled by the Israel Lands Authority which is the governmental body that controls these leases including the JNF. So while you can be against the existence of the JNF and argue it's a form of discrimination, it's hard to argue it constitutes apartheid. Particularly when Israeli law has systems in place to dismantle discriminatory policies, which it seems to do in within Israel proper.

I mean this is my understanding as a westerner, I don't live in Israel, ZEV might be able to tell me if I got anything wrong. But from my reading this seems to be the case.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

What do you think apartheid means? It's not just any racially discriminatory policy. Discriminatory policies are still in place all over the world, but that doesn't necessarily mean the countries that have discriminatory policies are responsible for apartheid.

The JNF was originally set up to encourage Jewish migration, the mens rae aspect of apartheid would be pretty hard to make the case that the organisation was designed with "the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them”.

Regardless, lands owned by the JNF are managed by the ILA, which cannot discriminate based on race according to Israeli law. Israel's supreme court in the 2000s ruled that Arabs have equal rights to lands controlled by the Israel Lands Authority which is the governmental body that controls these leases including the JNF. So while you can be against the existence of the JNF and argue it's a form of discrimination, it's hard to argue it constitutes apartheid. Particularly when Israeli law has systems in place to dismantle discriminatory policies, which it seems to do in within Israel proper.

I mean this is my understanding as a westerner, I don't live in Israel, ZEV might be able to tell me if I got anything wrong. But from my reading this seems to be the case.

So you think all those human rights lawyers at all those different human rights organisations are wrong?

 

[ZEV]

What do you think apartheid means? It's not just any racially discriminatory policy. Discriminatory policies are still in place all over the world, but that doesn't necessarily mean the countries that have discriminatory policies are responsible for apartheid.

The JNF was originally set up to encourage Jewish migration, the mens rae aspect of apartheid would be pretty hard to make the case that the organisation was designed with "the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them”.

Regardless, lands owned by the JNF are managed by the ILA, which cannot discriminate based on race according to Israeli law. Israel's supreme court in the 2000s ruled that Arabs have equal rights to lands controlled by the Israel Lands Authority which is the governmental body that controls these leases including the JNF. So while you can be against the existence of the JNF and argue it's a form of discrimination, it's hard to argue it constitutes apartheid. Particularly when Israeli law has systems in place to dismantle discriminatory policies, which it seems to do in within Israel proper.

I mean this is my understanding as a westerner, I don't live in Israel, ZEV might be able to tell me if I got anything wrong. But from my reading this seems to be the case.

Pretty spot on.

This is an answer I gave earlier in the year on the subject.

Do you mean Arab/Palestinian Israeli's or from the Palestinian occupied territories?

Either way, assuming they come to terms with a private seller there are no restrictions on private land sales.

It gets trickier with State owned land. 80% of the area. That is leased to Jewish and Arab Israeli's. Arab Israeli's are more likely to receive favourable terms

Alternatively, if a Palestinian were to sell land in Gaza or the West Bank to a Jew, the seller could be subject to execution under PA laws.

 

[Jazny]

So you think all those human rights lawyers at all those different human rights organisations are wrong?

Can you use the arguments that they make to specifically argue against anything I said in that post? If you can, I will look into it. Don't just lazily post entire articles from Amnesty International that mainly talk about apartheid allegations in the West Bank. My post was not about that. Just pick out some arguments by human rights lawyers or groups that talk about apartheid in Israel proper that directly contradict what I said and then we can discuss if those particular authors or legal scholars are wrong.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Can you use the arguments that they make to specifically argue against anything I said in that post? If you can, I will look into it. Don't just lazily post entire articles from Amnesty International that mainly talk about apartheid allegations in the West Bank. My post was not about that. Just pick out some arguments by human rights lawyers or groups that talk about apartheid in Israel proper that directly contradict what I said and then we can discuss if those particular authors or legal scholars are wrong.

Happy for you to go to The Hague and argue this one on behalf of Israel, Jazny

Send us a postcard while you are there!

World Court Finds Israel Responsible for Apartheid

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an advisory opinion on July 19, 2024, with significant consequences for human rights protections in Palestine under Israel’s 57-year occupation. The opinion stems from a December 2022 request by the United Nations General Assembly to the court to...

www.hrw.org

https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/186/186-20240719-adv-01-00-en.pdf

 

[Jazny]

Happy for you to go to The Hague and argue this one on behalf of Israel, Jazny

Send us a postcard while you are there!

World Court Finds Israel Responsible for Apartheid

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an advisory opinion on July 19, 2024, with significant consequences for human rights protections in Palestine under Israel’s 57-year occupation. The opinion stems from a December 2022 request by the United Nations General Assembly to the court to...

www.hrw.org

https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/186/186-20240719-adv-01-00-en.pdf

Ghost Patrol my goodness, how many times do you have to be told to read beyond the headline. That ICJ advisory opinion judgement is about the settler policy in the West Bank has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about. Reread what I wrote, read what you wrote, read the ICJ opinion, and come back to me with an argument.

I am really looking forward to a discussion over what the ICJ concluded in their advisory opinion, and what a separate committee on the elimination of racial discrimination found this year in their Palestine vs Israel case, but first I would like to see if you can actually make an argument against anything I said.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Ghost Patrol my goodness, how many times do you have to be told to read beyond the headline. That ICJ advisory opinion judgement is about the settler policy in the West Bank has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about. Reread what I wrote, read what you wrote, read the ICJ opinion, and come back to me with an argument.

I am really looking forward to a discussion over what the ICJ concluded in their advisory opinion, and what a separate committee on the elimination of racial discrimination found this year in their Palestine vs Israel case, but first I would like to see if you can actually make an argument against anything I said.

So you want to segregate the argument into one specific area?

 

[Jazny]

So you want to segregate the argument into one specific area?

I know you don't read articles, but surely you must read the posts you respond to, right? Yes the argument was about apartheid within the state of Israel itself, not the OTP. I said 'Israel proper' to delineate it from all the disputed territories it occupies according to the UN. Treebeard knew what I was talking about, hence he brough up the JNF.

Israel proper is not an apartheid state, the whole argument should really be about whether Israel's discriminatory policies in the West Bank qualify as apartheid.

Do you agree or disagree with the post you originally responded to now that has been cleared up?

 

[Ghost Patrol]

I know you don't read articles, but surely you must read the posts you respond to, right? Yes the argument was about apartheid within the state of Israel itself, not the OTP. I said 'Israel proper' to delineate it from all the disputed territories it occupies according to the UN. Treebeard knew what I was talking about, hence he brough up the JNF.

Do you agree or disagree with the post you originally responded to now that has been cleared up?

I don't think your post is relevant unless Israel withdraws from the occupied territories.

Hypothetically not apartheid if you exclude segregated areas is a weird argument, you must admit.

 

[Jazny]

I don't think your post is relevant unless Israel withdraws from the occupied territories.

Don't respond to it then. I only said it because Bostonian was arguing Israel isn't responsible for apartheid because their policies within the state of Israel don't qualify as apartheid. I was pointing out that's not necessarily the case because even though I agree with him that there seems to be no apartheid in Israel proper, the real argument about whether Israel is guilty of apartheid is with respect to their settler policy in the West Bank. You might somewhat agree with me on this based on your arguments for apartheid which seem to concentrate on the West Bank.

Then in response to that, Treebeard argued that there are laws in Israel that are tantamount to apartheid. I disagreed with him on that, then you chimed in.