This message was self-deleted by its author

[Mosby]

This message was self-deleted by its author (Mosby) on Fri Jun 24, 2016, 05:27 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[Purveyor]

1. It must really suck to be a country that must past laws to suppress opposition to apartheid.

Lovely place, indeed.

[shira]

3. Spain is passing those laws against BDS. It's because BDS is a hate movement. n/t

[Purveyor]

4. The current israeli gov't is also, most certainly a "hate movement". eom

[shira]

26. Well, at least that's progress. You basically conceded...

....that BDS is a hate movement. There's hope yet.

[King_David]

5. Frustrating for supporters of the bigoted BDS movement

That Jew hating org ( BDS) once attempted to stop an American Jew perform at a reggae festival, because he was a Jew , all the time not saying a word against a homophobic Gay Hating fuck ups who were allowed to perform at the very same festival.

[King_David]

6. They protecting a Jewish minority against hate.

[shira]

7. Ever notice the BDS'ers never speak out against the rising rate of hate....

....crimes committed against Jews throughout Europe and the USA?

They don't speak out against it because they're for it. They're the ones inciting it.

[Little Tich]

8. I'm opposed to Apartheid, so I think the Spanish decision is wrong.

It's also troubling that Spain considers Ariel University in the West Bank to be legal, which practically makes the settlements part of Israel:

Spain compensates West Bank university for boycott exclusion
Source: JTA, January 6, 2016
http://www.jta.org/2016/01/06/news-opinion/israel-middle-east/spain-compensates-west-bank-university-for-boycott-exclusion

This is of course a victory for the one-staters in this thread, but not for me - I still think that two states are better than one...

[FBaggins]

9. Wrong link

Missing from the one you provided was Spain saying that they consider the university to be legal and that the settlements are part of Israel. There's dispute over the legality of the settlement... but that doesn't mean that one has to decide whether a university within the settlement is either legal or illegal. What it is evidence of is that the BDS action was illegal, but that's plainly true.

Their Palestinian students don't seem to mind their existence:

I still think that two states are better than one...

Lol... no you don't. Two majority-Palestinian states perhaps... but not any rational version of the two-state solution.

[Little Tich]

10. The existence of Ariel U is in breach of the Fourth Geneva convention which prohibits the transfer

of an occupying nation's own civilian population into occupied territory.

Any dealings with Ariel U amounts to official recognition of its existence and tacit approval of the breaching of international law. While I think that individual students from Ariel should have the right to compete, they shouldn't be allowed to be official representatives of an illegal entity.

If the division between the illegal settlements and Israel becomes blurred, it will be impossible to remove the settlements, and if they're not removed, there will be no place for a Palestinian state. I've tried to understand how some people seem to think that a completely non-contiguous Palestinian state will function without infrastructure, resources, industry, trade or areas where it can expand, but I've never got a good answer to that.

[FBaggins]

11. Nope

It could be argued that Israel is in breach of the convention... or even that the location of the University is illegal. But not it's existence.

If I park my car in a handicap space, I might be in violation of the law and you could say that the car is not permitted to be there. That doesn't make the car itself illegal... and when you scratch the car and your parents force you to pay for it - they aren't declaring that it was legal for me to park there - only that it was illegal for you to take action to punish its location. The university has moved previously and could move again - it's existence is not delegitimized by it's current location.

Are you with the Trump supporters that basic services should be denied to "illegal aliens"? If someone steals from one of them, does the court punishing the criminal amount to "tacit approval" of their being in the country?


If the division between the illegal settlements and Israel becomes blurred, it will be impossible to remove the settlements, and if they're not removed, there will be no place for a Palestinian state.

That's nonsense. As has been pointed out more than once, most peace plans include the majority of settlers staying where they are and land being swapped. Official Palestinian positions disagree on the total percentage of land to be swapped or the relative value of the land that they are offered... but they agree on the basics.

[Little Tich]

12. The consensus is that the settlements have to go.

The UN Security Council resolution 242 is pretty clear that Israel has to withdraw from all occupied territories: "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;". (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242)

Marking ‘setback,’ Abbas demands full Israeli withdrawal to ’67 lines
http://www.timesofisrael.com/marking-setback-abbas-demands-full-israeli-withdrawal-to-67-lines/

Arab League won't accept any changes to 2002 peace initiative, says chief
http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Arab-League-wont-accept-any-changes-to-2002-peace-initiative-says-chief-456066

The only consensus that Israel can keep any settlements is with Israel, nobody else. All other countries consider the settlements illegal (or "illegitimate&quot and an obstacle to the two-state solution.

Until someone explains to me how a two-state solution is practically possible with the settlements in place, I will continue to believe that Israel can have either the two-state solution but not both.

And I don't understand how Ariel U could be considered a legal entity when every aspect of its existence and activity is in breach of international law...

[FBaggins]

19. You have a right to your own opinion, but not your own facts

You're simply wrong here. You cite that the Arab League "won't accept changes" to their peace initiative of 2002/2013 - and link to Abbas' position at one time (which also cited the Arab League's initiative)...

... what you keep missing is that the Arab League's peace initiative included the assumption of land swaps. You can't rationally continue to pretend that "The only consensus that Israel can keep any settlements is with Israel, nobody else" when the reality is that it's pretty much all players but Hammas. There is only debate over how much of the land will be swapped and what is acceptable in trade... not whether there will be swaps.

Abbas: Gaps Remain in Land Swap Deal With Israel

Responding to reports he offered to trade more land than in the past, PA President only says no agreement has been reached on the amount of land to be traded.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said on Saturday that he is ready to swap some land with Israel but that gaps remain on how much territory is to be traded.

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/abbas-gaps-remain-in-land-swap-deal-with-israel-1.291562

So the question is whether the continued claim on your part is ignorance or intentional dishonesty. There appears to be no third option.


Until someone explains to me how a two-state solution is practically possible with the settlements in place

Simple - By giving the new Palestinian state comparable value of land that is currently part of Israel. Ideally, this would be land that makes the Palestinain state more viable (expand Gaza, less-convoluted borders for the West Bank, etc.)

As Abbas said: ""We did not agree about the land area, but we agreed on the principle of swapping land [equal] in quality and value,"

don't understand how Ariel U could be considered a legal entity when every aspect of its existence and activity is in breach of international law...

There are obviously lots of things that you don't understand. It's simply false to say "every aspect of its existence and activity is in breach of international law". Only its current location (not its existence) is disputable.

[Little Tich]

22. The current location of the settlements is making any Palestinian development and economic growth

impossible.

I can't see how any land swaps can make Palestinian communities that are strangled by the settlements more viable. East Jerusalem is a good example; if the Jewish settlements aren't removed, it will be a cul-de-sac with nowhere to expand and no connection to other Palestinian cities. I really see no possibility of land swaps that would create a viable Palestinian state while leaving most or even a few of the settlements intact.

I think your assessment of the minimum requirements for a Palestinian state is too optimistic. Here's some background info about the economic situation in the occupied territories that confirms my view:

The economic costs of the Israeli occupation for the occupied Palestinian territory September 2011
Source: The Palestinian Ministry of National Economy and the Applied Research Institute - Jerusalem
http://www.un.org/depts/dpa/qpal/docs/2012Cairo/p2%20jad%20isaac%20e.pdf

East Jerusalem 2015: Facts and Figures
Source: Association for Civil Rights in Israel, May 2015
http://www.acri.org.il/en/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/EJ-Facts-and-Figures-2015.pdf

Palestinian Authority Incurs US$285 Million in Annual Fiscal Losses
Source: The World Bank

JERUSALEM, April 18, 2016 – A new World Bank report estimates that the Palestinian Authority (PA) is losing US$285 million in revenues annually under the current economic arrangements with the Government of Israel. The report states that these revenues can significantly ease the Authority’s fiscal stress.

Read more: http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2016/04/18/palestinian-authority-incurs-us285-million-in-annual-fiscal-losses

This is a different issue than what offers are on the table and the legality of the settlements, and I often wonder - if it turns out that keeping the settlements will lead to the binational one-state solution, will Israel really sacrifice the settlements to avoid it?

[shira]

25. Your sources are the UN and ACRI (associated with BDS).....

By definition, ACRI is antisemitic.

When your sources do not even recognize Israel's right to exist in peace as a Jewish state, why should anyone take them seriously?

[Little Tich]

28. For the sake of argument - do you know of any other studies of the Palestinian economy with

different figures that would contradict the findings of the UN, ACRI and the World Bank?

BTW:

Promoting equal civil rights ≠ Anti-Semitism

[shira]

29. Promoting "equal rights" in Israel via a Muslim Arab majority w/Hamas in charge....

....and living conditions similar to that of the rest of the middle east is not equal rights for Israelis living in a liberal democracy right now. That's hell for them and you know it.

As it pertains to the well-being of the Jews there, that's antisemitism.

Remember the Hezbollah-supporting Arab MK's from the Joint List and their rightwing views on LGBTQ rights? That's not equal rights but that's the kind of secular leadership BDS and ACRI support for 1-state.

Own it.

[shira]

14. 4th Geneva refers to Nazis transferring the Jewish population in Europe....

....to death camps & has nothing to do with Jews choosing to live in Jerusalem, Judea or Samaria.

[Little Tich]

15. Wikipedia: International law and Israeli settlements

The international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal under international law. Israel maintains that they are consistent with international law because it does not agree that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the territories occupied in the 1967 Six-Day War. The United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Court of Justice and the High Contracting Parties to the Convention have all affirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention does apply.

Numerous UN resolutions have stated that the building and existence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are a violation of international law, including UN Security Council resolutions in 1979 and 1980. UN Security Council Resolution 446 refers to the Fourth Geneva Convention as the applicable international legal instrument, and calls upon Israel to desist from transferring its own population into the territories or changing their demographic makeup. The reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions has declared the settlements illegal as has the primary judicial organ of the UN, the International Court of Justice and the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_settlements

[shira]

17. The UN? What a joke. Article from today, just one hour ago actually...

The UN is a disgusting institution.

And there are plenty more of these types of articles demonstrating the UN's depravity.

UN rape scandal whistle-blower resigns
==================

Anders Kompass has left his post at the UN, insisting he cannot work for an organisation that has a lack of accountability towards sexual abuse.

Anders Kompass, director of field operations at the UN human rights office in Geneva, announced his resignation on Tuesday. Kompass was suspended last year for exposing the sexual abuse of children in the Central African Republic. Kompass says he can no longer work for an organisation that does not hold senior officials to account.

Kompass faced the sack after he shared confidential documents detailing the exploitation of children as young as eight by French troops in the M’Poko camp for displaced people in the Central African Republic. The information was given to authorities in Paris because of the UN’s failure to stop the abuse. When French authorities’ tried to investigate Kompass’s claims, their efforts were hampered by UN officials.

The UN repeatedly condemned his actions, contending that he had breached protocols by sharing a secret internal document.Kompass was under disciplinary investigation for nine months. In January this year he was exonerated and informed in a letter that the internal investigation; run by the Office of Internal Oversight, had cleared him of all charges.

An independent panel later found senior UN managers to have “abused their authority” in the handling of the scandal and summed up the situation as a “gross institutional failure”. The UN’s actions were condemned by the panel as disingenuous to label what Kompass did as “misconduct”. In another separate case concerning Kompass passing information to the Moroccan government, his peers allegedly branded the whistle-blower as an “untrustworthy shill for foreign government.”

Kompass told news agency IRIN: “The complete impunity for those who have been found to have, in various degrees, abused their authority, together with the unwillingness of the hierarchy to express any regrets for the way they acted towards me sadly confirms that lack of accountability is entrenched in the United Nations. This makes it impossible for me to continue working there.”

more at.... http://mg.co.za/article/2016-06-08-un-rape-scandal-whistle-blower-resigns

Recently, there was the UNESCO decision denying Jewish history at the Temple Mount, along with UN statements that Hamas is not using construction material for military purposes (tunnels).

The UN has no business lecturing Israel on anything.

[shira]

13. It's been proven to you that the Apartheid charge is total BS

Also, your notion of 2 states....1 Palestinian state with no Jews and 1 Israeli state with a majority Palestinian population after full RoR makes for 2 Palestinian states. What's not to like about that?

You're fooling no one with your BS.

[Little Tich]

16. I don't consider your own assertions to be proof enough.

My assertion that the situation in the occupied territory amounts to Apartheid is based on solid evidence.

Israel and the apartheid analogy
Source: Wikipedia

Israel and the apartheid analogy compares Israel's treatment of Palestinians to South Africa's treatment of non-whites during its apartheid era within the context of the anti-humanitarian crime of apartheid, as expressed by the Israeli concept of hafrada.

The analogy has been used by some scholars, United Nations investigators, and human rights groups critical of Israeli policy. Critics of Israeli policy say that "a system of control" in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, including the ID system, Israeli settlements, separate roads for Israeli and Palestinian citizens around many of these settlements, military checkpoints, marriage law, the West Bank barrier, use of Palestinians as cheaper labour, Palestinian West Bank exclaves, inequities in infrastructure, legal rights, and access to land and resources between Palestinians and Israeli residents in the Israeli-occupied territories, resembles some aspects of the South African apartheid regime, and that elements of Israel's occupation constitute forms of colonialism and of apartheid, contrary to international law. Some commentators extend the analogy to include treatment of Arab citizens of Israel, describing their citizenship status as second-class.

Opponents of the analogy claim that the comparison is factually, morally, and historically inaccurate and intended to delegitimize Israel. Opponents state that the West Bank and Gaza are not part of sovereign Israel. They argue that though the internal free movement of Palestinians is heavily regulated by the Israeli government, the territories are governed by the elected Palestinian Authority and Hamas leaders, so they cannot be compared to the internal policies of apartheid South Africa.

Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy

[shira]

18. My assertions can be backed by fact. Yours can't....

Israeli Arab citizens and Palestinian permanent residents of Israel have guaranteed equal rights with other Israelis. They are the same in every way to Palestinians in the W.Bank who are denied rights due to not being citizens of Israel. That's the only reason they're denied rights. It's not based on race, ethnicity, religion. Hence, no Apartheid.

Once you show a similar situation that is defined as Apartheid anywhere else in the world, then you'll have a case. S.Africa doesn't come close because there were no Blacks on equal footing with whites in one area as opposed to another. Arabs within Israel have equal rights as citizens while those in the territories are a different nationality. So find "Apartheid" somewhere else in the world that can actually be compared to Israel, or just admit you don't have shit.

I've challenged you to provide a definition of Apartheid that we could then use to compare Israel with the rest of the world. You punted on that one too. If Israel is Apartheid, then provide the definition that fits. How difficult is that?

Also, please stop mentioning 2 states when your disingenuous notion of it is one Palestinian state that is Jew free and another Palestinian state with eventual majority Arab Islamic rule over 6 million Jews.

[Little Tich]

20. In every country except Israel, all civilians in an area are ruled by the same laws.

For example, a murderer in New York is sentenced in the same courts under the same laws, regardless whether that person happens to be an American or an illegal immigrant. In the occupied territories, there are two different legal systems, one is completely unfair and the other is a normal justice system of a democratic country. That's a clear example of Apartheid when one group is legally discriminated against and have no civil rights.

If the Palestinians in the occupied territories were part of the same legal system like they would be in every other democratic country in the world, that particular part of the Apartheid analogy wouldn't stick. If the Palestinians had equal rights, or even separate but equal rights there would be no basis whatsoever for the Apartheid analogy.

There are of course other reasons for the Apartheid analogy, like the fact that State land in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is for Jewish use only (!) and that Palestinians can't legally access natural resources, including water, which literally prevents all forms of economic growth. The Palestinians aren't allowed to expand existing communities or build new ones, while Israel is building new settlements all the time. There are no circumstances where Israelis and Palestinians have equal rights.

Here's a report from Human Rights Watch about Israel's treatment of Palestinians that doesn't mention the A word:

Separate and Unequal: Israel’s Discriminatory Treatment of Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories
Source: Human Rights Watch, December 19, 2010

This report consists of a series of case studies that compare Israel’s different treatment of Jewish settlements to nearby Palestinian communities throughout the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. It describes the two-tier system of laws, rules, and services that Israel operates for the two populations in areas in the West Bank under its exclusive control, which provide preferential services, development, and benefits for Jewish settlers while imposing harsh conditions on Palestinians. The report highlights Israeli practices the only discernable purposes of which appear to be promoting life in the settlements while in many instances stifling growth in Palestinian communities and even forcibly displacing Palestinian residents. Such different treatment, on the basis of race, ethnicity, and national origin and not narrowly tailored to meet security or other justifiable goals, violates the fundamental prohibition against discrimination under human rights law.

Read more: https://www.hrw.org/report/2010/12/19/separate-and-unequal/israels-discriminatory-treatment-palestinians-occupied

[FBaggins]

21. What country is this occuring in?

I thought that the West Bank was not part of Israel?

[Little Tich]

23. There are some seriously deluded persons in the Knesset and others living in the West Bank and East

Jerusalem who believe that the settlements are part of Israel.

That's beside the point, though. There is currently no place this side of Apartheid South Africa that has different legal systems for civilians. The American Jim Crow laws were never as bad as the Apartheid in the occupied territories.

Israel is pretty unique when it comes to legal discrimination, and is currently the only country that practises Apartheid.

[shira]

24. It's called occupation, not apartheid. The WB & Gaza aren't Israel.

Palestinians there are under a different legal system. If they were citizens of Israel they'd have equal rights like Israeli Arabs and Palestinians who are permanent residents.

Where's that definition of Apartheid I keep asking you for? It should be clear from that definition that Israel falls into the category. Otherwise they don't.

and is currently the only country that practises Apartheid.

Better cases for Apartheid than Israel...

Apartheid alive and well in Australia
http://www.herald.co.zw/apartheid-alive-and-well-in-australia/

Lebanese apartheid
http://friendsoflebanon.org/archives/1258

Now prove they aren't Apartheid. Go on...

Which countries say Israel is apartheid other than fascist ones? Not even HRW or Amnesty calls Israel Apartheid and they're the top 2 human rights organizations on the planet. Why do you think that is?

[Little Tich]

27. The occupation changed to Apartheid the moment an Israeli civilian moved in to occupied territory

and lived under a different legal system than the local population, in this case the laws of the occupying country. Now there are 600 000 civilians living under Israeli civilian law, while the local population is living under Israeli military law.

It's interesting that you put up two examples of supposed Apartheid that would classify Israel as an Apartheid state as well if the same standards were used. As the political system in the occupied territories is even more discriminatory, it would mean a fortiori that the Apartheid is stronger in the occupied territories than either Australia or Lebanon. I don't believe that there's a system of Apartheid in Australia and Lebanon, for me that's just discrimination. I don't believe that there's Apartheid in Israel either, just discrimination.

Anyway, your link to the Herald article didn't work, but here's another description of discrimination against aboriginals in Australia:
Do we have apartheid in Australia?
Source: Creative Spirits
(snip)

Contemporary apartheid in Australia

It is not easy to recognise elements of apartheid in Australia. Often it takes outsiders to make the comparison.
One such outsider is South African writer Sisonke Msimang who moved to Australia after spending years writing about and commenting on human rights, race relations and government accountability in South Africa.
Since arriving she has recognised a systematic approach to ‘assimilate’ and ‘eradicate’ Australia’s Aboriginal heritage. She says the Australian government employs tactics of ‘trickery, disposition and violence’ that are ‘as ugly as you’ll find anywhere in the world’, practices which she found all too similar to those implemented during South Africa’s apartheid.

Police harassment
As any Aboriginal person and they will tell you that Aboriginal people are selectively targeted by police.
A Sydney Morning Herald investigation in November 2014 into police searches at train stations found that the “searches are not spread evenly across the city”.

People at Redfern, where the majority of Sydney’s Aboriginal people live, were “far more likely to be searched than those at Central or Kings Cross stations”. This was despite those searches being less likely to identify drugs. Passengers at Redfern Station were 6.5 times more likely to be searched than passengers at Central Station, the report found.

Read more: http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/politics/do-we-have-apartheid-in-australia

[shira]

30. "I don't believe that there's Apartheid in Israel either, just discrimination."

It's interesting that you put up two examples of supposed Apartheid that would classify Israel as an Apartheid state as well if the same standards were used. As the political system in the occupied territories is even more discriminatory, it would mean a fortiori that the Apartheid is stronger in the occupied territories than either Australia or Lebanon. I don't believe that there's a system of Apartheid in Australia and Lebanon, for me that's just discrimination. I don't believe that there's Apartheid in Israel either, just discrimination.

Good, we agree. It's no wonder you never provided a definition for Apartheid. It's because you know Israel isn't Apartheid.

So why do you keep villifying the Jewish state with the Apartheid charge when you don't believe that's the case?

[Little Tich]

31. There's a huge difference between Israel and the occupied territories -

while there's Apartheid in the occupied territories, the situation in Israel isn't worse than how things were in the Jim Crow South.

I'm not really sure what your argument is - do you think that the Apartheid analogy can be applied to Lebanon and Australia, and if so, what prevents Israel from being included as well?

[shira]

32. Where's that definition of Apartheid? You can't find one that fits for the territories....

Last edited Thu Jun 9, 2016, 06:07 PM - Edit history (1)

So your claims are baseless.

Reminds me of your failure to provide a definition for antisemitism. You don't like definitions when they contradict your worldview.

Consider yourself debunked until you find a definition of Apartheid that describes Israel & only Israel.