Israel imposes 'apartheid regime' on Palestinians - U.N. report

[Morch]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Which only supports my opinion that the UN is a waste of space. If  it can't state that there is a human rights problem in Palestine then it is not worth taking any notice of, IMO.

 

The UN, through various bodies, condemned (and condemns) Israel with regard to human rights issues, on a clearly disproportionate level. Such instances were the subject of many past topics, which you participated in. This makes the complaint above contrived at best. The UNSG did not endorse Israeli policies, but rejected this specific "report".

 

If the UN is "not worth taking any notice", then there's no reason to get worked up over compliance with resolutions, condemnations or anything to do with it.

[weejun]

Oh boy.

Quote

U.N. Under-Secretary General and ESCWA Executive Secretary Rima Khalaf said the report was the "first of its type" from a U.N. body that "clearly and frankly concludes that Israel is a racist state that has established an apartheid system that persecutes the Palestinian people".

Now what countries might be part of this ESCWA thing, one might ask? Why, paragons of human rights and objective views on Israel: Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Mauritania, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, The Sudan, The Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, The United Arab Emirates and Yemen.

 

Obviously an objective and truthful report

 

On 16.3.2017 at 6:43 AM, ilostmypassword said:

Just because the Israelis have massively stolen Palestinian property as the South African Apartheid regime did to black africans? Just because there is one set of laws of the West Bank for Palestinians and another for Israelis? Just because the Israeli government wants to set up a geographic patchwork of small palestinian territories on the west bank as the South Africans did with its bantustans?

Totally baseless conclusion to this report.

You seem to be confusing a few different things.

 

Stealing property is not apartheid. There is not a single state on the planet which has not stolen someone's land at some point. I would contest your claim about Israel stealing land, but that discussion will completely derail the thread.

 

Having different rules for citizens and foreigners is the way it works everywhere. But I guess it's only bad when a Jewish state does it.

 

Geographic patchwork of small Palestinian territories on the West Bank? Got a source for that? Jewish settlements make up less than 2% of the West Bank.

 

So yes, the conclusion is totally baseless, and your post is based on misunderstandings.

[weejun]

On 17.3.2017 at 10:01 AM, dexterm said:

This demographic engineering manifests itself in several discriminatory ways that consitute apartheid most often in form of confiscating Palestinian land, forbidding them building/repair permits while encouraging Jewish only settlements (colonies) on the same land in occupied territories; the right of Palestinians to marry whomsoever they wish, and the right of Palestinians to family reunification (all allowed to Israeli Jews)

Wait, so occupying the enemy's land is apartheid? So the allied forces were guilty of apartheid when they occupied Germany during WWII? Or it is just wrong when a Jewish stat does it?

 

On 16.3.2017 at 0:31 PM, darksidedog said:

Regardless of who authored the document there is an underlying truth to part of the accusation.

The country is not on a level footing for all persons living there.

Israel was formed to provide a homeland after WW2 and the terrible persecution of the jews by Hitler.

Having been on the receiving end, I still find it hard to understand why they can not be more tolerant and open minded.

A resolution to the problems has to come at some point, which will only happen when both sides are on a level playing field.

Israel has the power to bring this to reality, the Palestinians do not.

What do you mean by "not on a level footing for all persons living there"? Are you confusing Israel itself with the occupied West Bank?

 

As for being tolerant and open minded, that's great when the other guy isn't launching rockets at your civilians and carrying out frequent suicide attacks.

 

On 17.3.2017 at 9:33 AM, Saladin said:

I am not antisemitic or even anti Israel. I used to be a big fan of Israel

Why do I find that hard to believe?

[dexterm]

2 hours ago, weejun said:

Oh boy.

Now what countries might be part of this ESCWA thing, one might ask? Why, paragons of human rights and objective views on Israel: Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Mauritania, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, The Sudan, The Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, The United Arab Emirates and Yemen.

 

Obviously an objective and truthful report

 

You seem to be confusing a few different things.

 

Stealing property is not apartheid. There is not a single state on the planet which has not stolen someone's land at some point. I would contest your claim about Israel stealing land, but that discussion will completely derail the thread.

 

Having different rules for citizens and foreigners is the way it works everywhere. But I guess it's only bad when a Jewish state does it.

 

Geographic patchwork of small Palestinian territories on the West Bank? Got a source for that? Jewish settlements make up less than 2% of the West Bank.

 

So yes, the conclusion is totally baseless, and your post is based on misunderstandings.

>>Jewish settlements make up less than 2% of the West Bank.

 

Your 2% figure deceptively refers purely to settler buildings as though the Zionist colonizers control nothing outside their front door. What you fail to also mention is settler industrial and agricultural zones, and most important of all the local authority jurisdiction of these settlements which account for 42% of the West Bank, where Palestinians are forbidden to build

What the 2 percent figure omits.

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20160804-how-much-palestinian-land-do-israeli-settlements-really-eat-up/

 

[dexterm]

2 hours ago, weejun said:

Wait, so occupying the enemy's land is apartheid? So the allied forces were guilty of apartheid when they occupied Germany during WWII? Or it is just wrong when a Jewish stat does it?

 

What do you mean by "not on a level footing for all persons living there"? Are you confusing Israel itself with the occupied West Bank?

 

As for being tolerant and open minded, that's great when the other guy isn't launching rockets at your civilians and carrying out frequent suicide attacks.

 

Why do I find that hard to believe?

>>Wait, so occupying the enemy's land is apartheid? So the allied forces were guilty of apartheid when they occupied Germany during WWII? Or it is just wrong when a Jewish stat does it?

...False analogy. Allied forces did not occupy with the intention of flooding the region with its own inhabitants in order to expand its own territory.

 

Israel's temporary occupation has now lasted 50 years!

 

Under the Geneva Convention, to which Israel and the USA are signatories, 

"The Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. 
Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Section_III._Occupied_territories

 

As one of the pillars of Israel's apartheid strategy central to the OP report, preventing the original Palestinian inhabitants from returning to their homes , contrary to the Geneva Convention, is one of the chief methods Israel uses to retain its majority Jewish population and thus its phony Jewish State,  in order to maintain dominance over the Palestinian population.

Edited April 1, 2017 by dexterm

[yardrunner]

5 hours ago, weejun said:

Obviously an objective and truthful report

just because a report is biased does not mean that it doesnt contain a kernel of truth

[weejun]

4 hours ago, dexterm said:

>>Wait, so occupying the enemy's land is apartheid? So the allied forces were guilty of apartheid when they occupied Germany during WWII? Or it is just wrong when a Jewish stat does it?...False analogy. Allied forces did not occupy with the intention of flooding the region with its own inhabitants in order to expand its own territory.

Neither did Israel. Israel didn't occupy the West Bank and Gaza until 1967, and they were forced to because they were attacked. They never even wanted to occupy the West Bank, but had no choice.

 

Quote

Israel's temporary occupation has now lasted 50 years!

Yes, because the Palestinians keep waging war against them.

 

Quote

 

Under the Geneva Convention, to which Israel and the USA are signatories, 

"The Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. 
Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Section_III._Occupied_territories

 

As one of the pillars of Israel's apartheid strategy central to the OP report, preventing the original Palestinian inhabitants from returning to their homes , contrary to the Geneva Convention, is one of the chief methods Israel uses to retain its majority Jewish population and thus its phony Jewish State,  in order to maintain dominance over the Palestinian population.

 

You seem to be confusing different things again. Are you talking about the Arab Exodus in 1948, which did not happen from land Israel occupied, or are you talking about the West Bank today?

 

By the way, did you know that many Jewish West Bank settlements are in reality Jews returning to homes they were ethnically cleansed from in 1948?

 

And what about all the Jews that were expelled from Arab countries in 1948? There were far more of them than there were Palestinian refugees from Israel.

[weejun]

1 hour ago, yardrunner said:

just because a report is biased does not mean that it doesnt contain a kernel of truth

It means that the report is useless and shouldn't be used for anything. It should be ignored.

[Morch]

8 hours ago, weejun said:

Oh boy.

Now what countries might be part of this ESCWA thing, one might ask? Why, paragons of human rights and objective views on Israel: Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Mauritania, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, The Sudan, The Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, The United Arab Emirates and Yemen.

 

Obviously an objective and truthful report

 

You seem to be confusing a few different things.

 

Stealing property is not apartheid. There is not a single state on the planet which has not stolen someone's land at some point. I would contest your claim about Israel stealing land, but that discussion will completely derail the thread.

 

Having different rules for citizens and foreigners is the way it works everywhere. But I guess it's only bad when a Jewish state does it.

 

Geographic patchwork of small Palestinian territories on the West Bank? Got a source for that? Jewish settlements make up less than 2% of the West Bank.

 

So yes, the conclusion is totally baseless, and your post is based on misunderstandings.

 

I'd agree to the first two comments made, with regard to ESCWA's membership and bias, and with posters conflating different issues and offenses when referring to the Israeli occupation.

 

The two latter comments though, no.

 

The Palestinians living in the West Bank are not Israeli citizens, that much is clear. But then, they are also not exactly "foreigners" in the sense that they belong to one country and live in another.

 

For all practical intents and practices, the current situation is that areas falling under Palestinian management are fragmented. That's not even something debated by the Israeli government, and can be easily discerned by relevant maps. This is further confounded by certain areas being under Palestinian civilian management, while Israeli forces are in charge of security.

 

The 2% figure is bogus. It relates, perhaps, to actual built up areas. It does not include all the areas falling under various municipal and local council jurisdiction, agricultural lands, industrial zones and areas reserved for IDF use.

[Morch]

5 hours ago, dexterm said:

>>Wait, so occupying the enemy's land is apartheid? So the allied forces were guilty of apartheid when they occupied Germany during WWII? Or it is just wrong when a Jewish stat does it?

...False analogy. Allied forces did not occupy with the intention of flooding the region with its own inhabitants in order to expand its own territory.

 

Israel's temporary occupation has now lasted 50 years!

 

Under the Geneva Convention, to which Israel and the USA are signatories, 

"The Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. 
Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Section_III._Occupied_territories

 

As one of the pillars of Israel's apartheid strategy central to the OP report, preventing the original Palestinian inhabitants from returning to their homes , contrary to the Geneva Convention, is one of the chief methods Israel uses to retain its majority Jewish population and thus its phony Jewish State,  in order to maintain dominance over the Palestinian population.

 

Israel did not have conquer and occupy the West Bank and the Gaza Strip with the "intention of flooding the region with its own inhabitants" either.  And when expressing the usual faux indignation over the length of the occupation, you may want to recall that the Arab and Palestinian reactions to the 1967 war were summed in the Khartoum Resolution and its rejectionist stance. Whether you like to admit it or not, the fact stands that part of the responsibility for the length of the occupation (and by association, the illegal settlements becoming an issue) does fall with the Arab/Palestinian side as well.

 

You can troll all you like, but there is no obligation for a country to commit suicide.

 

Edited April 1, 2017 by Morch

[Morch]

2 hours ago, yardrunner said:

just because a report is biased does not mean that it doesnt contain a kernel of truth

 

Most posters do not do "kernels". More like all or nothing types. full blown drama with fireworks. Even the suggestion that not all forms of discrimination amount to the what the "report" claims were rejected. Same goes for acknowledging the "report"'s bias and the relevancy of this bias.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, weejun said:

Neither did Israel. Israel didn't occupy the West Bank and Gaza until 1967, and they were forced to because they were attacked. They never even wanted to occupy the West Bank, but had no choice.

 

Yes, because the Palestinians keep waging war against them.

 

You seem to be confusing different things again. Are you talking about the Arab Exodus in 1948, which did not happen from land Israel occupied, or are you talking about the West Bank today?

 

By the way, did you know that many Jewish West Bank settlements are in reality Jews returning to homes they were ethnically cleansed from in 1948?

 

And what about all the Jews that were expelled from Arab countries in 1948? There were far more of them than there were Palestinian refugees from Israel.

 

The Palestinians, as far as they can be treated as a whole, do not wage war against Israel. If this was the case there would be no PA by now.

 

And no, there weren't all that many Jewish West Bank settlements  to which Israelis returned to after the 1967 war. Some, yes.