According to the UN Treaty Organization, the fact that the Apartheid Convention is intended to apply to situations other than South Africa is confirmed by its endorsement in a wider context in instruments adopted before and after the fall of apartheid. In 1977, Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 recognized apartheid as a “grave breach” of the Protocol (art. 85, paragraph 4 (c)) without any geographical limitation. Apartheid features as a crime in the Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind adopted by the International Law Commission on first reading in 1991 without any reference to South Africa and in 1996 the Draft Code adopted on second reading recognized institutionalized racial discrimination as species of crime against humanity in article 18 (f) and explained in its commentary that this “is in fact the crime of apartheid under a more general denomination”(Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-eighth session (A/51/10), p. 49). In 1998, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court included the “crime of apartheid” as a form of crime against humanity (art. 7). It may be concluded that the Apartheid Convention is dead as far as the original cause for its creation – apartheid in South Africa – is concerned, but that it lives on as a species of the crime against humanity, under both customary international law and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.[187]
Israel has been accused by Palestinian organizations and their supporters of the crime of apartheid under international law. For example, in 2006, at the UN-sponsored International Conference of Civil Society in Support of the Palestinian People, Phyllis Bennis, co-chair of the International Coordinating Network on Palestine, opened the speeches of the civil society at the first plenary of the conference by alleging "Once again, the crime of apartheid [is] being committed by a United Nations Member State [Israel]."[9]
The crime of apartheid first became part of international law in 1973 when the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (ICSPCA) was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. It defined it as "inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group ... over another racial group ... and systematically oppressing them."[188]
In 2002, a statutory definition of the crime of apartheid was provided by Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The crime of apartheid was included as one of several crimes against humanity, and encompassed inhumane acts such as torture, murder, forcible transfer, imprisonment, or persecution of an identifiable group on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, or other grounds, "committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."[189] This change to defining the crime of apartheid as discrimination on the grounds of national, ethnic or cultural group rather than racial group alone increased the applicability of the law to Israeli policy in the West Bank.[188]
Once the crime and its elements had been included in the criminal statute, even countries that had originally objected to the apartheid convention, like the United States, recognized the customary prohibition against apartheid. The U.S. now allows aliens to file suits in U.S. courts for violations.[190][191]
No mechanism exists to prosecute any state for the crime of apartheid, except referral from the UN Security Council to the International Criminal Court, and no such referral has ever taken place. However, many of the member states have given their national courts subject matter jurisdiction over crimes defined in the Rome Statute under the principle of universal jurisdiction.[192]
Sharon's Bantustans are far from Copenhagen's hope
By Akiva Eldar - 13/05/2003
During his visit two weeks ago to Israel, former Italian prime minister Massimo D'Alema hosted a small group of Israelis - public figures and former diplomats - to a dinner at a Jerusalem hotel.
The conversation quickly turned to the conciliatory interviews Prime Minister Ariel Sharon gave to the press for their Independence Day editions. One of the Israelis, of the type for whom it's second nature, no matter who is in government, to explain and defend Israeli policy, expressed full confidence in Sharon's peace rhetoric. He said the prime minister understands the solution to the conflict is the establishment of a Palestinian state beside Israel.
The former premier from the Italian left said that three or four years ago he had a long conversation with Sharon, who was in Rome for a brief visit. According to D'Alema, Sharon explained at length that the Bantustan model was the most appropriate solution to the conflict.
The defender of Israel quickly protested. "Surely that was your personal interpretation of what Sharon said."
D'Alema didn't give in. "No, sir, that is not interpretation. That is a precise quotation of your prime minister."
Supplementary evidence backing D'Alema's story can be found in an expensively produced brochure prepared for Tourism Minister Benny Elon, who is promoting a two-state solution - Israel and Jordan. Under the title "The Road to War: a tiny protectorate, overpopulated, carved up and demilitarized," the Moledet Party leader presents "the map of the Palestinian state, according to Sharon's proposal." Sharon's map is surprisingly similar to the plan for protectorates in South Africa in the early 1960s. Even the number of cantons is the same - 10 in the West Bank (and one more in Gaza). Dr. Alon Liel, a former Israeli ambassador to South Africa, notes that the South Africans only managed to create four of their 10 planned Bantustans.
The Bantustan model, says Liel, was the ugliest of all the tricks used to perpetuate the apartheid regime in most of South Africa's territory. By 1986, unrest in the Bantustans turned into ongoing rioting and terror, which descended into coups in the so-called independent regimes, and South African intervention. The minuscule support the Bantustan governments did enjoy evaporated, so by January 1994, they were finally dismantled and became integrated into the united South Africa of black majority rule.
No country recognized the Bantustans nor did any drop embargoes against South Africa. But veteran leaders of the black struggle against apartheid remember that business people from Israel and Taiwan were the only foreigners who developed business relations with the Bantustan governments. The permission given to the largest of the Bantustans, Bophutatswana, to open a diplomatic office in Tel Aviv infuriated American opponents of the apartheid regime, including Senator Ted Kennedy, and some of the Jewish congressmen of the time.
An Israeli who spent many years nurturing Israeli relations with Africa was also at the dinner hosted by the Italian prime minister. He said that whenever he happened to encounter Sharon, he would be interrogated at length about the history of the protectorates and their structures.
So the definition of apartheid was deliberately tailored so that said "official" definition could apply to situations like the West Bank? Fair enough, and on that basis, the phrase applies or could apply at some future point to the occupied territories. I suppose this is proof that language can be commandeered to make "truth". Either way, everyone in this thread can agree that oppression is occurring and we are arguing semantics at this point. And yosi's thread has been hijacked to boot.
So the definition of apartheid was deliberately tailored so that said "official" definition could apply to situations like the West Bank? Fair enough, and on that basis, the phrase applies or could apply at some future point to the occupied territories. I suppose this is proof that language can be commandeered to make "truth". Either way, everyone in this thread can agree that oppression is occurring and we are arguing semantics at this point. And yosi's thread has been hijacked to boot.
Fuck Yosi's thread. Israel is a murderous rogue state.
If one day this country begins abiding by the rule of international and makes reparations for it's 40 year criminal occupation and all of the war crimes and crimes against humanity that have gone with it, then we can begin to look at the place differently. But until that day Israel deserves no respect what-so-fucking-ever.
So the definition of apartheid was deliberately tailored so that said "official" definition could apply to situations like the West Bank? Fair enough, and on that basis, the phrase applies or could apply at some future point to the occupied territories. I suppose this is proof that language can be commandeered to make "truth". Either way, everyone in this thread can agree that oppression is occurring and we are arguing semantics at this point. And yosi's thread has been hijacked to boot.
Fuck Yosi's thread. Israel is a murderous rogue state.
If one day this country begins abiding by the rule of international and makes reparations for it's 40 year criminal occupation and all of the war crimes and crimes against humanity that have gone with it, then we can begin to look at the place differently. But until that day Israel deserves no respect what-so-fucking-ever.
So the definition of apartheid was deliberately tailored so that said "official" definition could apply to situations like the West Bank? Fair enough, and on that basis, the phrase applies or could apply at some future point to the occupied territories. I suppose this is proof that language can be commandeered to make "truth". Either way, everyone in this thread can agree that oppression is occurring and we are arguing semantics at this point. And yosi's thread has been hijacked to boot.
Fuck Yosi's thread. Israel is a murderous rogue state.
If one day this country begins abiding by the rule of international and makes reparations for it's 40 year criminal occupation and all of the war crimes and crimes against humanity that have gone with it, then we can begin to look at the place differently. But until that day Israel deserves no respect what-so-fucking-ever.
+1
You're right, let's loathe an entire country, that's a helpful approach. This is ultimately why some of us cannot get on the same page as you guys, despite the 70-80% or so agreement across our positions on the topic.
You're right, let's loathe an entire country, that's a helpful approach. This is ultimately why some of us cannot get on the same page as you guys, despite the 70-80% or so agreement across our positions on the topic.
Apartheid South Africa was also widely loathed the world over - despite the continued support it received from the U.S right up until the end of the Apartheid regime - and it was this loathing, and intolerance of it's racism and disregard for international law, that ultimately led to the sanctions and boycotts against it which finally brought it down.
But maybe you think Israel deserves to be treated differently?
Apartheid South Africa was also widely loathed the world over - despite the continued support it received from the U.S right up until the end of the Apartheid regime - and it was this loathing, and intolerance of it's racism and disregard for international law, that ultimately led to the sanctions and boycotts against it which finally brought it down.
But maybe you think Israel deserves to be treated differently?
I'd actually like to see more international pressure on Israel to cease settlement expansion and withdraw to pre-1967 borders, assuming that said pressure is rational and not of the "holocaust didn't happen" variety that comes out of certain quarters in Iran. Does this require pointed comparisons to South Africa? No. Effective political action does not have to be predicated around buzzwords, and I maintain my position that there are differences between the previous South African situation and that of the Palestinians.
You're right, let's loathe an entire country, that's a helpful approach. This is ultimately why some of us cannot get on the same page as you guys, despite the 70-80% or so agreement across our positions on the topic.
Apartheid South Africa was also widely loathed the world over - despite the continued support it received from the U.S right up until the end of the Apartheid regime - and it was this loathing, and intolerance of it's racism and disregard for international law, that ultimately led to the sanctions and boycotts against it which finally brought it down.
But maybe you think Israel deserves to be treated differently?
Hopefully when you calm down from the frothing rage you seem to be in you'll realize that the argument you just made is logically flawed by the fact that it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Your argument is essentially that Israel is an apartheid state because if you scream long enough and loudly enough about Israel being an apartheid state, and eventually the whole world believes you and treats Israel the way they did Apartheid South Africa, then Israel is an apartheid state. Well, first there's the practical fact that this hasn't happened. The whole world doesn't feel that way, nor does it seem to be inclining in that direction, so your entire argument is premised on a possible future event. Furthermore, it makes no sense in principle to define the term by the "reaction of the world to Israel," which, since you clearly can't speak for the opinion of the entire world, really means your reaction to Israel. You are essentially making the argument that Israel is an apartheid country because you think they are, but scaled up to global proportions.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Hopefully when you calm down from the frothing rage you seem to be in you'll realize that the argument you just made is logically flawed by the fact that it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Your argument is essentially that Israel is an apartheid state because if you scream long enough and loudly enough about Israel being an apartheid state, and eventually the whole world believes you and treats Israel the way they did Apartheid South Africa, then Israel is an apartheid state. Well, first there's the practical fact that this hasn't happened. The whole world doesn't feel that way, nor does it seem to be inclining in that direction, so your entire argument is premised on a possible future event. Furthermore, it makes no sense in principle to define the term by the "reaction of the world to Israel," which, since you clearly can't speak for the opinion of the entire world, really means your reaction to Israel. You are essentially making the argument that Israel is an apartheid country because you think they are, but scaled up to global proportions.
I posted the definition of the word above. I suggest you read it. It applies to the occupied territories. Here, I'll post it again seeing as you chose to ignore it the first time:
In 2002, a statutory definition of the crime of apartheid was provided by Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The crime of apartheid was included as one of several crimes against humanity, and encompassed inhumane acts such as torture, murder, forcible transfer, imprisonment, or persecution of an identifiable group on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, or other grounds, "committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."[189] This change to defining the crime of apartheid as discrimination on the grounds of national, ethnic or cultural group rather than racial group alone increased the applicability of the law to Israeli policy in the West Bank.
As for the world supporting an end to Israels Apartheid state, it already does, as is proven by the vote count on Resolution 242 every year which shows that only Israel and the U.S oppose a peaceful settlement along the June 1967 border and an end to the criminal occupation.
"Israel is an apartheid state", yes? Its clearly not, based on this guy's arguments.
As long as the Arabs in Israel do not have the same rights and opportunities as Jews in Israel, it is an apartheid state.
From a legal standpoint Arabs do have all the same rights. There is no legal discrimination against Arabs in Israel. You couldn't, for example legally refuse to serve an Arab in your store because he's an Arab. As for Arabs not having equal opportunities as Jews in Israel, that's not a definition of apartheid, it's a definition of discrimination, and possibly not even that, since it could just as easily be a definition for any country that isn't perfectly socialist and democratic (in the political science sense of a "perfect democracy"). Any state where there are any definable groups that have fewer opportunities then the rest of society, whether it is Blacks in America, Turks in Germany, North Africans in France, Women in Saudi Arabia and Yemen, the Poor every-fucking-where, would by this definition be an "apartheid state." I'm fairly certain that when something is defined by a characteristic that is universal that definition is invalid. The whole purpose of definition is to "define" something, to separate something out and to show how it is unique in some way from everything else. If Apartheid means unequal opportunities then apartheid literally has no meaning as a practical term. It's just some philosophical idea, like the Platonic Ideal.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Hopefully when you calm down from the frothing rage you seem to be in you'll realize that the argument you just made is logically flawed by the fact that it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Your argument is essentially that Israel is an apartheid state because if you scream long enough and loudly enough about Israel being an apartheid state, and eventually the whole world believes you and treats Israel the way they did Apartheid South Africa, then Israel is an apartheid state. Well, first there's the practical fact that this hasn't happened. The whole world doesn't feel that way, nor does it seem to be inclining in that direction, so your entire argument is premised on a possible future event. Furthermore, it makes no sense in principle to define the term by the "reaction of the world to Israel," which, since you clearly can't speak for the opinion of the entire world, really means your reaction to Israel. You are essentially making the argument that Israel is an apartheid country because you think they are, but scaled up to global proportions.
I posted the definition of the word above. I suggest you read it. It applies to the occupied territories. Here, I'll post it again seeing as you chose to ignore it the first time:
In 2002, a statutory definition of the crime of apartheid was provided by Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The crime of apartheid was included as one of several crimes against humanity, and encompassed inhumane acts such as torture, murder, forcible transfer, imprisonment, or persecution of an identifiable group on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, or other grounds, "committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."[189] This change to defining the crime of apartheid as discrimination on the grounds of national, ethnic or cultural group rather than racial group alone increased the applicability of the law to Israeli policy in the West Bank.
As already shown, Israel does not act either in Israel proper or in the West Bank on "racial" grounds. Nor is Israel acting with the "intention of maintaining" its "regime" in the West Bank, as shown by 1) Israel's repeated statements that it wants to make peace and see the establishment of a Palestinian state, and 2) if you refuse to believe what has already been said by the state, the fact that Israel is a democracy and the majority of the population doesn't want to continue the occupation indefinitely, and they certainly don't want to see Israel annex the West Bank.
As for the world supporting an end to Israels Apartheid state, it already does, as is proven by the vote count on Resolution 242 every year which shows that only Israel and the U.S oppose a peaceful settlement along the June 1967 border and an end to the criminal occupation.
You keep mentioning this vote. When does this vote take place? What are the details? If I want to look up this vote what would I type in? Did this vote ask the members of the UN to vote on the proposition that "Israel is an apartheid state?" Cause otherwise you can't logically use this vote as a means of arguing that Israel is an apartheid state. Plus there is still the philosophical problem of defining the term "apartheid" by the feelings of a hundred+ UN representatives, or I suppose the governments of the countries they represent, because we all know that governments always make decisions for perfectly pure reasons (except, of course, Israel and the U.S.).
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
"Israel is an apartheid state", yes? Its clearly not, based on this guy's arguments.
As long as the Arabs in Israel do not have the same rights and opportunities as Jews in Israel, it is an apartheid state.
From a legal standpoint Arabs do have all the same rights. There is no legal discrimination against Arabs in Israel....
Sounds like apartheid to me. Also, state school funding for Arab children is less than half of the funding for Jewish children and when I talk about opportunities, I'm talking about basic education - a right. So don't tell me Arab residents have the same rights and that there is no legal discrimation. These are just a couple of examples, there are plenty more, e.g. the shameful treatment of the Bedouin population, etc.
Israel rejects bill allocating equal land to Jews and Arabs
By Jonathan Liss
The Ministerial Committee for Legislation on Sunday rejected a bill proposed by MK Ahmed Tibi (Ra'am-Ta'al) proposing that the state enforce equal allocation of land to Jews and Arabs.
"Yet again, the Israeli government has proven that it is avoiding the principle of civil equality," Tibi said in response to the ruling. "The same government which approved the selection bill of [Jewish] MKs David Rotem and Israel Hasson, ignores Arabs' rights, and hasn't approved the building of a new Arab village since 1948. The government failed at the challenge I placed before it, and that saddens me."
The bill's authors stressed the importance of it in an explanation to the committee.
Advertisement
"Since the foundation of the state, the Israel Lands Administration is solely used as Jewish land administration. The director of the Israel Lands Administration has used all the tactics, with the help of the Jewish Agency, to allocate state land only to Jews. Despite the bitter attempt over the decades, not even one Arab town has been established since the state's foundation. Therefore a bill must be passed which stipulates that the Israel Lands Administration will serve all the state's citizens without discrimination on religion or nationality, and will promise an equal allocation of land to better the Arab population of Israel."
Tibi's proposal was intended to counter a bill passed two weeks ago which states that reception committees of Israeli communities can decide who will reside in their towns. One consequence of that bill is that Israeli Arabs would not be able to live in those towns if the reception committees decide so.
not to mention jewish-only roads and settlements in the West Bank, access to things like health care, etc, acess to basic humanitarian goods in Gaza, like food, medicine, cleaner sewer systems, etc... all because they're Palestinian. It's remarkable how you guys can't even see that, it's so clear. Can you find me a single instance where Israel punished a group of Jewish people in that entire land as harshly as they punish the entire palestinian population? what about transportation restrictions? checkpoints? the "security" wall? this is the same wall that cuts off palestinian villages from each other and separates the Jewish settlements and the most fertile land to be used exclusively for Jewish people, and Palestinians are restricted to dirty water systems and poor social development in general. The mere fact that you guys even debate the amount of discrimination - which amounts to the correct usage of the word 'apartheid' - Israel shows to the Palestinians is just another example of why it's clear that you can't see anything regarding that issue with a clear mind - you try to apply these terms like "moderate" to mean intelligent, when really it just means "I can't decide which bullshit side makes sense so I'm just gonna invent a third bullshit ideology that combines the dumbest ideas from both sides"
You keep mentioning this vote. When does this vote take place? What are the details? If I want to look up this vote what would I type in? Did this vote ask the members of the UN to vote on the proposition that "Israel is an apartheid state?" Cause otherwise you can't logically use this vote as a means of arguing that Israel is an apartheid state. Plus there is still the philosophical problem of defining the term "apartheid" by the feelings of a hundred+ UN representatives, or I suppose the governments of the countries they represent, because we all know that governments always make decisions for perfectly pure reasons (except, of course, Israel and the U.S.).
Yeah, yeah, yeah, keep struggling to wriggle out of the fact that Israel is an Apartheid state. I've proved it above in more ways than one, and your squirming efforts to avoid the facts make no difference.
As for the U.N 242 vote, it's not easy to find the details online, probably because some people would rather brush the vote count under the table.
Here's what I did find though which gives you an idea of who the rejectionists are:
GENERAL ASSEMBLY DEMANDS FULL RESPECT FOR SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 1860
CALLING FOR IMMEDIATE GAZA CEASEFIRE, AS EMERGENCY SESSION CONCLUDES
Resolution Adopted by Vote of 143-3-9, After Two-Day Debate;
Expresses Grave Concern about Developments on Ground since Council Text’s Adoption
The General Assembly, gravely concerned about the intensified military operations in the Gaza Strip and heavy civilian casualties since last week’s adoption of resolution 1860 by the Security Council, this evening demanded full respect for that text, including its urgent call for an immediate, durable and fully respected ceasefire, leading to the full withdrawal of Israeli forces and unimpeded provision of humanitarian assistance.
Following a two-day emergency special session convened to address the three-week old crisis, the Assembly adopted its own resolution on the issue by a vote of 143 in favour to 3 against (United States, Israel, Nauru), with 9 abstentions (Australia, Canada, Côte d’Ivoire, Ecuador, Indonesia, Iran, Nigeria, Syria, Venezuela).
The report also contains the observations of the Secretary-General on the current state of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and international efforts to move the peace process forward. In the report, which covers the period from September 2008 to August 2009, the Secretary-General says the United Nations will continue to work towards the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine. The framework for peace remains unchanged: the creation of two States, an independent and viable Palestine living side-by-side in peace and security with Israel, on the basis of the principle of land for peace, and a just and comprehensive regional peace consistent with Security Council resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003), and 1850 (2008), as well as the Road Map and the Arab Peace Initiative.
Following Two-Day Debate, General Assembly Adopts Six Draft Resolutions on Question of Palestine, Middle East
Address: Peaceful Settlement, Palestinian Rights Committee, Jerusalem,
Special Information Programme, Palestinian Rights Division, Syrian Globe
Fresh from observing the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, the General Assembly this morning concluded two days of plenary debate on the question of Palestine and the broader situation in the Middle East with the adoption, by recorded vote, of six resolutions aimed at promoting the inalienable rights of Palestinians -– particularly to statehood –- and permanently ending Israel’s “illegal” actions in Jerusalem and Syrian Golan.
In early action, the Assembly turned its attention to Palestine with the adoption of four texts. It first adopted, by a recorded vote of 109 in favour to 8 against (Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States) with 55 abstentions, a resolution on the “Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People” (document A/64/L.20) (for voting details, see Annex I). By that text, it asked the Committee to continue to exert all efforts to promote the realization of Palestinians’ inalienable rights, including to self-determination.
By a recorded vote of 112 in favour to 9 against (Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, New Zealand, United States) with 54 abstentions (Annex II), the Assembly next adopted a resolution on the “Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat” (document A/64/L.21), by which it requested the Secretary-General to continue to provide the Division with the necessary resources and ensure that it continued to carry out its programme of work.
Next, by a recorded vote of 162 in favour to 8 against (Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 5 abstentions (Benin, Cameroon, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Tonga) (Annex III), the Assembly adopted a resolution on the “Special Information Programme on the Question of Palestine of the Department of Public Information of the Secretariat” (document A/64/L.22), by which it requested the Department to continue its special information programme for the 2010-2011 biennium.
The Assembly also adopted by a recorded vote of 164 in favour to 7 against (Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States) with 4 abstentions (Cameroon, Canada, Fiji, Tonga) (Annex IV), a resolution on the “Peaceful Settlement of the question of Palestine” (document A/64/L.23), by which it reaffirmed the illegality of a host of Israeli actions aimed at altering the character, status and demographic composition of Jerusalem and the territory as a whole, among them, Israel’s construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem.
More broadly by the text, the Assembly reaffirmed its full support for the Middle East peace process, based on relevant United Nations resolutions, the Madrid terms of reference, the Arab Peace Initiative, the Quartet Road Map and existing agreements between the Israeli and Palestinian sides. It urged the parties to take immediate steps in follow-up to their joint understanding reached at the 2007 Annapolis Conference, and encouraged the convening of an international conference in Moscow, as envisioned by Security Council resolution 1850 (2008).
Speaking before the votes, the United States representative said his Government was deeply saddened to be presented with unbalanced resolutions, which unlike the Assembly’s actions vis-à-vis other States, placed demands on Israel and failed to acknowledge that both sides had obligations. While the United States accepted the principle that the Assembly might look into the practices of States, resolutions under this item formed a clear pattern of institutional bias directed at one Member State.
Speaking after the votes, the representative of Israel said his Government had voted against the resolutions, which reflected a one-sided agenda that had been repeated year in and year out. People in the region did not need another biased General Assembly resolution; they needed peace based on mutual recognition, which would result from negotiations.
Following that action, the Assembly adopted two texts on the situation in the Middle East.
By a recorded vote of 163 in favour to 7 against (Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Panama, United States), with 5 abstentions (Australia, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Fiji, Tonga), the Assembly then adopted the resolution on “Jerusalem” (document A/64/L.24) (Annex V), by which it expressed grave concern at any action taken by any body -- Governmental or non-governmental -- in violation of resolutions 181 (II) (1947), 36/120 (1981), 56/31 (2001) and 478 (1980).
Next, by a recorded vote of 116 in favour to 7 against (Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 51 abstentions, the Assembly adopted a resolution on “The Syrian Golan” (document A/64/L.25) (Annex VI), by which it declared that Israel had failed to comply with Security Council resolution 497 (1981) and that the Israeli decision of 14 December 1981 to impose its laws on the occupied Syrian Golan was null and void. Continued occupation of the Syrian Golan was a stumbling block to achieving a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the region. It called on Israel to resume talks on the Syrian and Lebanese tracks and demanded its withdrawal from all the occupied Syrian Golan to the line of 4 June 1967.
Speaking after action, the observer of Palestine said the resolutions sent a strong signal on the importance of upholding the clear principles of international law. The building of illegal settlements, the building of an illegal wall, and the annexation of East Jerusalem were all obstacles to peace. The resolutions were not one-sided. “We could not all of us be wrong”, he said. Israel was acting as if it was above international law and it was high time to bring it into compliance.
Also speaking in explanation of vote after the vote on the resolutions related to Palestine were the representatives of New Zealand and Sweden (on behalf of the European Union).
Also speaking in explanation of the vote after the vote on the resolutions related to the Middle East were the representatives of Argentina (also speaking for Brazil), Iran and Syria.
The General Assembly will reconvene at 3 p.m. Wednesday, 2 December to take up the reports of its First Committee (Disarmament and International Security).
Background
The General Assembly met today to take action on draft resolutions relating to the question of Palestine and the situation in the Middle East. (For summaries of the resolutions and debate, please see press releases [GA/10894] and [GA/10895]).
Action on Draft Resolutions under Agenda Item 16 on Question of Palestine
Resuming its consideration of the question of Palestine, the Assembly first turned to a draft text on the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (document A/64/L.20).
Speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, the United States representative said, on the situation in the Middle East, his Government had clearly stated that there should be two states living side by side in peace and security. The United States was deeply saddened to be presented with unbalanced resolutions, which unlike the Assembly’s actions vis-à-vis other States, placed demands on Israel and failed to acknowledge that both sides had obligations. While the United States accepted the principle that the Assembly might look into the practices of States, resolutions under this item formed a clear pattern of institutional bias directed at one Member State. Of particular concern were three resolutions on the entities established more than a generation ago that perpetuated that bias.
He said the millions of dollars spent on the Division of Palestinian Rights, the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices could be better directed towards other issues, including direct assistance to needy Palestinians, as could staff resources. The United States had provided significant financial support to the Palestinian Authority and to Palestinian refugees. The United States was the largest single donor to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). He reiterated the call for all to review the continued existence of those bodies with a sharp focus on what, if anything, they contributed to finding a solution to the Middle East conflict.
In addition to those three resolutions, the Assembly would consider others that would prejudge the outcome of permanent status issues, he said. They called into question the United Nations’ credibility. Through good faith negotiations, parties could agree on an outcome that reconciled the goals of a viable Palestinian state, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state living in secure and recognized borders. The United States’ commitment to achieving a solution of two states living side by side in peace was unwavering.
By a recorded vote of 109 in favour to 8 against (Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States) with 55 in abstention, the Assembly then adopted the text on the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (document A/64/L.20) (Annex I), by which it asked the Committee to continue to exert all efforts to promote the realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including their right to self-determination. It authorized the Committee to adjust its approved work programme after considering developments and report to the Assembly.
Further by the text, the Assembly requested the Committee to continue its cooperation and support to Palestinian and other civil organizations, as well as involve additional civil society organizations and parliamentarians in its work to mobilize support for the Palestinian people. It requested the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, and other United Nations bodies associated with the question of Palestine, to cooperate fully with the Committee. Finally, it requested the Secretary-General to circulate the report of the Committee to all competent bodies of the United Nations and urge them to take the necessary action, as appropriate.
The Assembly then adopted by a recorded vote of 112 in favour to 9 against (Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, New Zealand and United States) with 54 in abstention, a resolution on the Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat (document A/64/L.21) (Annex II), by which it requested the Secretary-General to continue to provide the Division with the necessary resources and ensure that it continued to carry out its programme of work. It requested the Division, as part of the observance of the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People on 29 November, to continue to organize an annual exhibit on Palestinian rights or a cultural event in cooperation with the Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine.
By a recorded vote of 162 in favour to 8 against (Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and United States) with 5 in abstentions (Benin, Cameroon, Fiji, Papua New Guinea and Tonga), the Assembly next adopted a resolution on the Special Information Programme on the Question of Palestine (document A/64/L.22) (Annex III), by which it requested the Department of Public Information, in full cooperation with the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, to continue its special information programme for the biennium 2010-2011. It encouraged the Department to find ways for the media and civil society to engage in open and positive discussions to explore means for encouraging people-to-people dialogue and promote peace and mutual understanding in the region.
Next, the Assembly adopted by recorded vote of 164 in favour to 7 against (Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and United States) with 4 abstentions (Cameroon, Canada, Fiji and Tonga), a resolution on the Peaceful Settlement of the question of Palestine (document A/64/L.23) (Annex IV), by which it reaffirmed the illegality of Israeli actions intended at changing the status of Jerusalem, including measures such as the so-called E-1 plan [which aims to connect Jerusalem to the West Bank and settlement of Ma’ale Adumim].
It also reaffirmed the illegality of other unilateral measures that are contrary to international law and endeavour to alter the character, status and demographic composition of the city and the territory as a whole, among them, Israel’s construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem. It expressed deep concern at the continued Israeli policy of closures and restrictions on the movement of persons and goods, medical and humanitarian personnel and goods, continued establishment of checkpoints and imposition of a permit regime throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, which had created a dire humanitarian crisis.
Also by the text, the Assembly reaffirmed its full support for the Middle East peace process, based on the relevant United Nations resolutions, Madrid terms of reference, the Arab Peace Initiative, the Quartet Road Map and existing agreements between the Israeli and Palestinian sides. It encouraged continued regional and international efforts to promote the Arab Peace Initiative; urged parties to undertake immediate steps in follow-up to their joint understanding reached at the 2007 Annapolis Conference; and encouraged the convening of an international conference in Moscow.
The Assembly also stressed the need for advancing reconstruction in the Gaza Strip; called on Israel to comply with its obligations under international law; and reiterated the demand for complete cessation of all Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the Syrian Golan. Reaffirming its commitment to the two-State solution of Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security within recognized borders, based on pre-1967 borders, the Assembly stressed the need for Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem.
Finally by the text, the Assembly stressed the need for justly resolving the problem of Palestine refugees; called on parties to resume direct peace negotiations towards conclusion of a final peaceful settlement; urged States to speed provision of economic humanitarian and technical assistance to Palestinians; encouraged the Quartet’s Special Representative to strengthen Palestinian institutions and requested the Secretary-General to continue efforts towards the attainment of a peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine.
Speaking after the vote, the representative of Israel said his Government had voted against the resolutions, as it had done in the past, because they did not reflect the reality of the region. They reflected a one-sided agenda repeated year in and year out. They did not help the conflict. People in the region needed peace based on mutual recognition, which would result from negotiations. They did not need another biased and one-sided General Assembly resolution. The Middle East required an agreement that would allow countries to live in peace.
Speaking in explanation of its vote on resolutions A/64/L.21 and A/64/L.22, the representative of New Zealand said his country had consistently supported negotiations toward a two-state solution to the Middle East conflict. New Zealand said it was essential to approach the issues raised in these resolutions with balance and regard for the intent of the text in question.
Regarding the resolution on the special information programme, New Zealand supported the dissemination of balanced information and welcomed this resolution’s focus on promoting dialogue between the two sides. While he voted in favour of this resolution, he called on the department’s special information programme to carry out its mandate in a manner that reflected the full spectrum of perspectives.
Regarding the resolution on the Division for Palestinian Rights, New Zealand was not convinced that the Division was a constructive use of resources and it did little to contribute to the Middle East peace process. It voted against the resolution. But, that did not detract from its strong support for Palestinian self-determination.
Speaking on behalf of the European Union, the representative of Sweden explained its vote regarding the resolution of the “Peaceful settlement of the Question of Palestine” (A/64/L.23). The Union urged the Palestinian Authority and Israel to enter into serious peace negotiations as soon as possible.
The European Union was deeply concerned about the continued settlement activities and evictions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem and reiterated that they were an obstacle to peace. It was also concerned about the recent developments in East Jerusalem and was closely following the situation around the Al Aqsa mosque and Temple Mount/Haram al Sharif.
It was gravely concerned about the humanitarian situation in Gaza, and what was, in effect, a blockade. It consistently called for the immediate openings of crossings to let humanitarian aid, commercial goods and people go into and out of Gaza. Without that, reconstruction and economic recovery would not be possible.
Action on Draft Resolutions under Agenda Item 15 on Situation in Middle East
The Assembly then turned its attention to the situation in the Middle East.
By a recorded vote of 163 in favour, to 7 against (Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Panama, United States), with 5 in abstention (Australia, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Fiji, Tonga), the Assembly then adopted the resolution on Jerusalem (document A/64/L.24) (Annex V), by which it expressed grave concern at any action taken by any body -- Governmental or non-governmental -- in violation of resolutions 181 (II) (1947), 36/120 (1981), 56/31 (2001) and 478 (1980). It expressed grave concern at Israel’s continuation of illegal settlement activities, including the so-called E-1 plan, construction of the wall around East Jerusalem and restricted access to and residence in East Jerusalem.
Further by the text, the Assembly reiterated its determination that any actions taken by Israel to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on Jerusalem were illegal and, therefore, null and void. It called on Israel to immediately cease all such illegal measures and stressed that a comprehensive, just and lasting solution to the question of Jerusalem should take into account the legitimate concerns of both Palestinians and Israelis and should include internationally guaranteed provisions to ensure freedom of religion of its inhabitants. Finally, it requested the Secretary-General to report back to it at its sixty-fifth session on the implementation of the resolution.
Next, by a recorded vote of 116 in favour, to 7 against (Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 51 in abstention, the Assembly adopted a resolution on The Syrian Golan (document A/64/L.25) (Annex VI), by which it declared that Israel had failed to comply with Security Council resolution 497 (1981) and that the Israeli decision of 14 December 1981 to impose its laws on the occupied Syrian Golan was null and void. It reaffirmed its determination that all relevant provisions annexed to the Hague Convention of 1907 and Geneva Convention relative to the protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War continue to apply.
not to mention jewish-only roads and settlements in the West Bank, access to things like health care, etc, acess to basic humanitarian goods in Gaza, like food, medicine, cleaner sewer systems, etc... all because they're Palestinian. It's remarkable how you guys can't even see that, it's so clear. Can you find me a single instance where Israel punished a group of Jewish people in that entire land as harshly as they punish the entire palestinian population? what about transportation restrictions? checkpoints? the "security" wall? this is the same wall that cuts off palestinian villages from each other and separates the Jewish settlements and the most fertile land to be used exclusively for Jewish people, and Palestinians are restricted to dirty water systems and poor social development in general. The mere fact that you guys even debate the amount of discrimination - which amounts to the correct usage of the word 'apartheid' - Israel shows to the Palestinians is just another example of why it's clear that you can't see anything regarding that issue with a clear mind - you try to apply these terms like "moderate" to mean intelligent, when really it just means "I can't decide which bullshit side makes sense so I'm just gonna invent a third bullshit ideology that combines the dumbest ideas from both sides"
You know, I am starting to think that acting like a douchebag is a paid job description for you. Dumbest ideas from both sides? I don't even know what you're talking about and what the hell your problem is, and suffice to say, I am not real interested in finding out.
The mere fact that you guys even debate the amount of discrimination - which amounts to the correct usage of the word 'apartheid' - outlaw
Apartheid does not mean discrimination. The two words are not synonyms. Apartheid involves discrimination, but the fact that there is discrimination is not sufficient grounds to apply the label apartheid. That's like saying that killing a single person is an act of genocide. Genocide involves killing individuals, but clearly killing one person is not sufficient grounds for the term genocide to apply.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
The mere fact that you guys even debate the amount of discrimination - which amounts to the correct usage of the word 'apartheid' - outlaw
Apartheid does not mean discrimination. The two words are not synonyms. Apartheid involves discrimination, but the fact that there is discrimination is not sufficient grounds to apply the label apartheid. That's like saying that killing a single person is an act of genocide. Genocide involves killing individuals, but clearly killing one person is not sufficient grounds for the term genocide to apply.
but what Israel is doing IS in line with what the UN and ICC call apartheid, right?
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
I don't think so. Post the complete definition again please.
i've already posted it twice and both times you ignored it, do a search for it
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
'According to the UN Treaty Organization, the fact that the Apartheid Convention is intended to apply to situations other than South Africa is confirmed by its endorsement in a wider context in instruments adopted before and after the fall of apartheid. In 1977, Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 recognized apartheid as a “grave breach” of the Protocol (art. 85, paragraph 4 (c)) without any geographical limitation. Apartheid features as a crime in the Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind adopted by the International Law Commission on first reading in 1991 without any reference to South Africa and in 1996 the Draft Code adopted on second reading recognized institutionalized racial discrimination as species of crime against humanity in article 18 (f) and explained in its commentary that this “is in fact the crime of apartheid under a more general denomination”(Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-eighth session (A/51/10), p. 49). In 1998, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court included the “crime of apartheid” as a form of crime against humanity (art. 7). It may be concluded that the Apartheid Convention is dead as far as the original cause for its creation – apartheid in South Africa – is concerned, but that it lives on as a species of the crime against humanity, under both customary international law and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.[187]
Israel has been accused by Palestinian organizations and their supporters of the crime of apartheid under international law. For example, in 2006, at the UN-sponsored International Conference of Civil Society in Support of the Palestinian People, Phyllis Bennis, co-chair of the International Coordinating Network on Palestine, opened the speeches of the civil society at the first plenary of the conference by alleging "Once again, the crime of apartheid [is] being committed by a United Nations Member State [Israel]."[9]
The crime of apartheid first became part of international law in 1973 when the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (ICSPCA) was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. It defined it as "inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group ... over another racial group ... and systematically oppressing them."[188]
In 2002, a statutory definition of the crime of apartheid was provided by Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The crime of apartheid was included as one of several crimes against humanity, and encompassed inhumane acts such as torture, murder, forcible transfer, imprisonment, or persecution of an identifiable group on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, or other grounds, "committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."[189] This change to defining the crime of apartheid as discrimination on the grounds of national, ethnic or cultural group rather than racial group alone increased the applicability of the law to Israeli policy in the West Bank.[188]
Once the crime and its elements had been included in the criminal statute, even countries that had originally objected to the apartheid convention, like the United States, recognized the customary prohibition against apartheid. The U.S. now allows aliens to file suits in U.S. courts for violations.[190][191]
No mechanism exists to prosecute any state for the crime of apartheid, except referral from the UN Security Council to the International Criminal Court, and no such referral has ever taken place. However, many of the member states have given their national courts subject matter jurisdiction over crimes defined in the Rome Statute under the principle of universal jurisdiction.[192]
From the definition you posted it seems that apartheid is defined by oppression stemming from group affiliation. Oppression is only apartheid, if I understand this definition correctly, if the oppression is against a certain group on account of that group's identity. To be more precise, if Israel were oppressing the Palestinians BECAUSE they are Palestinians, then the term apartheid would rightly apply. However Israel is not oppressing Palestinians because of the fact that they are Palestinian. Israeli policy is not motivated by a hatred of Palestinians for being Palestinian.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
From the definition you posted it seems that apartheid is defined by oppression stemming from group affiliation. Oppression is only apartheid, if I understand this definition correctly, if the oppression is against a certain group on account of that group's identity. To be more precise, if Israel were oppressing the Palestinians BECAUSE they are Palestinians, then the term apartheid would rightly apply. However Israel is not oppressing Palestinians because of the fact that they are Palestinian. Israeli policy is not motivated by a hatred of Palestinians for being Palestinian.
oh, i agree they don't dislike them because they are Palestinians, they dislike them because they won't leave
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
oh, i agree they don't dislike them because they are Palestinians, they dislike them because they won't leave
Which is why its possible to argue against the use of this term in this situation ... Apartheid focuses on group membership specifically, not other reasons for oppression.
I'd rather not, I'm a little busy. If you have it at hand just re-post it. Sorry to inconvenience you, but you're the one requesting a response.
it's easy, go to the top of this thread and type 'icc' in the search box, it will now find 3 posts in this thread, the 1 at the bottom is it. or you can search in the moving train forum and find it in this thread and at least 1 other
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
oh, i agree they don't dislike them because they are Palestinians, they dislike them because they won't leave
Which is why its possible to argue against the use of this term in this situation ... Apartheid focuses on group membership specifically, not other reasons for oppression.
fine, i will just repost it, this is what the UN and ICC call apartheid, both of them name a few things Israel does against the Palestinians, it doesn't just have to be a perfect recreation of South Africa
ICSPCA definition of the crime of apartheid
Article II of the ICSPCA defines the crime of apartheid as follows:
International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid,
Article II[1]
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:
Denial to a member or members of a racial group or groups of the right to life and liberty of person
By murder of members of a racial group or groups;
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;
By arbitrary arrest and illegal imprisonment of the members of a racial group or groups;
Deliberate imposition on a racial group or groups of living conditions calculated to cause its or their physical destruction in whole or in part;
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;
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;
Exploitation of the labour of the members of a racial group or groups, in particular by submitting them to forced labour;
Persecution of organizations and persons, by depriving them of fundamental rights and freedoms, because they oppose apartheid.
[edit]ICC definition of the crime of apartheid
Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defines crimes against humanity as:
Article 7
Crimes against humanity
For the purpose of this Statute, 'crime against humanity' means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
Murder;
Extermination;
Enslavement;
Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
Torture;
Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
Enforced disappearance of persons;
The crime of apartheid;
Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.[12]
Later in Article 7, the crime of apartheid is defined as:
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.[12]
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
You keep mentioning this vote. When does this vote take place? What are the details? If I want to look up this vote what would I type in? Did this vote ask the members of the UN to vote on the proposition that "Israel is an apartheid state?" Cause otherwise you can't logically use this vote as a means of arguing that Israel is an apartheid state. Plus there is still the philosophical problem of defining the term "apartheid" by the feelings of a hundred+ UN representatives, or I suppose the governments of the countries they represent, because we all know that governments always make decisions for perfectly pure reasons (except, of course, Israel and the U.S.).
Yeah, yeah, yeah, keep struggling to wriggle out of the fact that Israel is an Apartheid state. I've proved it above in more ways than one, and your squirming efforts to avoid the facts make no difference.
As for the U.N 242 vote, it's not easy to find the details online, probably because some people would rather brush the vote count under the table.
Here's what I did find though which gives you an idea of who the rejectionists are:
GENERAL ASSEMBLY DEMANDS FULL RESPECT FOR SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 1860
CALLING FOR IMMEDIATE GAZA CEASEFIRE, AS EMERGENCY SESSION CONCLUDES
Resolution Adopted by Vote of 143-3-9, After Two-Day Debate;
Expresses Grave Concern about Developments on Ground since Council Text’s Adoption
The General Assembly, gravely concerned about the intensified military operations in the Gaza Strip and heavy civilian casualties since last week’s adoption of resolution 1860 by the Security Council, this evening demanded full respect for that text, including its urgent call for an immediate, durable and fully respected ceasefire, leading to the full withdrawal of Israeli forces and unimpeded provision of humanitarian assistance.
Following a two-day emergency special session convened to address the three-week old crisis, the Assembly adopted its own resolution on the issue by a vote of 143 in favour to 3 against (United States, Israel, Nauru), with 9 abstentions (Australia, Canada, Côte d’Ivoire, Ecuador, Indonesia, Iran, Nigeria, Syria, Venezuela).
The report also contains the observations of the Secretary-General on the current state of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and international efforts to move the peace process forward. In the report, which covers the period from September 2008 to August 2009, the Secretary-General says the United Nations will continue to work towards the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine. The framework for peace remains unchanged: the creation of two States, an independent and viable Palestine living side-by-side in peace and security with Israel, on the basis of the principle of land for peace, and a just and comprehensive regional peace consistent with Security Council resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003), and 1850 (2008), as well as the Road Map and the Arab Peace Initiative.
Following Two-Day Debate, General Assembly Adopts Six Draft Resolutions on Question of Palestine, Middle East
Address: Peaceful Settlement, Palestinian Rights Committee, Jerusalem,
Special Information Programme, Palestinian Rights Division, Syrian Globe
Fresh from observing the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, the General Assembly this morning concluded two days of plenary debate on the question of Palestine and the broader situation in the Middle East with the adoption, by recorded vote, of six resolutions aimed at promoting the inalienable rights of Palestinians -– particularly to statehood –- and permanently ending Israel’s “illegal” actions in Jerusalem and Syrian Golan.
In early action, the Assembly turned its attention to Palestine with the adoption of four texts. It first adopted, by a recorded vote of 109 in favour to 8 against (Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States) with 55 abstentions, a resolution on the “Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People” (document A/64/L.20) (for voting details, see Annex I). By that text, it asked the Committee to continue to exert all efforts to promote the realization of Palestinians’ inalienable rights, including to self-determination.
By a recorded vote of 112 in favour to 9 against (Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, New Zealand, United States) with 54 abstentions (Annex II), the Assembly next adopted a resolution on the “Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat” (document A/64/L.21), by which it requested the Secretary-General to continue to provide the Division with the necessary resources and ensure that it continued to carry out its programme of work.
Next, by a recorded vote of 162 in favour to 8 against (Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 5 abstentions (Benin, Cameroon, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Tonga) (Annex III), the Assembly adopted a resolution on the “Special Information Programme on the Question of Palestine of the Department of Public Information of the Secretariat” (document A/64/L.22), by which it requested the Department to continue its special information programme for the 2010-2011 biennium.
The Assembly also adopted by a recorded vote of 164 in favour to 7 against (Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States) with 4 abstentions (Cameroon, Canada, Fiji, Tonga) (Annex IV), a resolution on the “Peaceful Settlement of the question of Palestine” (document A/64/L.23), by which it reaffirmed the illegality of a host of Israeli actions aimed at altering the character, status and demographic composition of Jerusalem and the territory as a whole, among them, Israel’s construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem.
More broadly by the text, the Assembly reaffirmed its full support for the Middle East peace process, based on relevant United Nations resolutions, the Madrid terms of reference, the Arab Peace Initiative, the Quartet Road Map and existing agreements between the Israeli and Palestinian sides. It urged the parties to take immediate steps in follow-up to their joint understanding reached at the 2007 Annapolis Conference, and encouraged the convening of an international conference in Moscow, as envisioned by Security Council resolution 1850 (2008).
Speaking before the votes, the United States representative said his Government was deeply saddened to be presented with unbalanced resolutions, which unlike the Assembly’s actions vis-à-vis other States, placed demands on Israel and failed to acknowledge that both sides had obligations. While the United States accepted the principle that the Assembly might look into the practices of States, resolutions under this item formed a clear pattern of institutional bias directed at one Member State.
Speaking after the votes, the representative of Israel said his Government had voted against the resolutions, which reflected a one-sided agenda that had been repeated year in and year out. People in the region did not need another biased General Assembly resolution; they needed peace based on mutual recognition, which would result from negotiations.
Following that action, the Assembly adopted two texts on the situation in the Middle East.
By a recorded vote of 163 in favour to 7 against (Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Panama, United States), with 5 abstentions (Australia, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Fiji, Tonga), the Assembly then adopted the resolution on “Jerusalem” (document A/64/L.24) (Annex V), by which it expressed grave concern at any action taken by any body -- Governmental or non-governmental -- in violation of resolutions 181 (II) (1947), 36/120 (1981), 56/31 (2001) and 478 (1980).
Next, by a recorded vote of 116 in favour to 7 against (Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 51 abstentions, the Assembly adopted a resolution on “The Syrian Golan” (document A/64/L.25) (Annex VI), by which it declared that Israel had failed to comply with Security Council resolution 497 (1981) and that the Israeli decision of 14 December 1981 to impose its laws on the occupied Syrian Golan was null and void. Continued occupation of the Syrian Golan was a stumbling block to achieving a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the region. It called on Israel to resume talks on the Syrian and Lebanese tracks and demanded its withdrawal from all the occupied Syrian Golan to the line of 4 June 1967.
Speaking after action, the observer of Palestine said the resolutions sent a strong signal on the importance of upholding the clear principles of international law. The building of illegal settlements, the building of an illegal wall, and the annexation of East Jerusalem were all obstacles to peace. The resolutions were not one-sided. “We could not all of us be wrong”, he said. Israel was acting as if it was above international law and it was high time to bring it into compliance.
Also speaking in explanation of vote after the vote on the resolutions related to Palestine were the representatives of New Zealand and Sweden (on behalf of the European Union).
Also speaking in explanation of the vote after the vote on the resolutions related to the Middle East were the representatives of Argentina (also speaking for Brazil), Iran and Syria.
The General Assembly will reconvene at 3 p.m. Wednesday, 2 December to take up the reports of its First Committee (Disarmament and International Security).
Background
The General Assembly met today to take action on draft resolutions relating to the question of Palestine and the situation in the Middle East. (For summaries of the resolutions and debate, please see press releases [GA/10894] and [GA/10895]).
Action on Draft Resolutions under Agenda Item 16 on Question of Palestine
Resuming its consideration of the question of Palestine, the Assembly first turned to a draft text on the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (document A/64/L.20).
Speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, the United States representative said, on the situation in the Middle East, his Government had clearly stated that there should be two states living side by side in peace and security. The United States was deeply saddened to be presented with unbalanced resolutions, which unlike the Assembly’s actions vis-à-vis other States, placed demands on Israel and failed to acknowledge that both sides had obligations. While the United States accepted the principle that the Assembly might look into the practices of States, resolutions under this item formed a clear pattern of institutional bias directed at one Member State. Of particular concern were three resolutions on the entities established more than a generation ago that perpetuated that bias.
He said the millions of dollars spent on the Division of Palestinian Rights, the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices could be better directed towards other issues, including direct assistance to needy Palestinians, as could staff resources. The United States had provided significant financial support to the Palestinian Authority and to Palestinian refugees. The United States was the largest single donor to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). He reiterated the call for all to review the continued existence of those bodies with a sharp focus on what, if anything, they contributed to finding a solution to the Middle East conflict.
In addition to those three resolutions, the Assembly would consider others that would prejudge the outcome of permanent status issues, he said. They called into question the United Nations’ credibility. Through good faith negotiations, parties could agree on an outcome that reconciled the goals of a viable Palestinian state, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state living in secure and recognized borders. The United States’ commitment to achieving a solution of two states living side by side in peace was unwavering.
By a recorded vote of 109 in favour to 8 against (Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States) with 55 in abstention, the Assembly then adopted the text on the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (document A/64/L.20) (Annex I), by which it asked the Committee to continue to exert all efforts to promote the realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including their right to self-determination. It authorized the Committee to adjust its approved work programme after considering developments and report to the Assembly.
Further by the text, the Assembly requested the Committee to continue its cooperation and support to Palestinian and other civil organizations, as well as involve additional civil society organizations and parliamentarians in its work to mobilize support for the Palestinian people. It requested the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, and other United Nations bodies associated with the question of Palestine, to cooperate fully with the Committee. Finally, it requested the Secretary-General to circulate the report of the Committee to all competent bodies of the United Nations and urge them to take the necessary action, as appropriate.
The Assembly then adopted by a recorded vote of 112 in favour to 9 against (Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, New Zealand and United States) with 54 in abstention, a resolution on the Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat (document A/64/L.21) (Annex II), by which it requested the Secretary-General to continue to provide the Division with the necessary resources and ensure that it continued to carry out its programme of work. It requested the Division, as part of the observance of the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People on 29 November, to continue to organize an annual exhibit on Palestinian rights or a cultural event in cooperation with the Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine.
By a recorded vote of 162 in favour to 8 against (Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and United States) with 5 in abstentions (Benin, Cameroon, Fiji, Papua New Guinea and Tonga), the Assembly next adopted a resolution on the Special Information Programme on the Question of Palestine (document A/64/L.22) (Annex III), by which it requested the Department of Public Information, in full cooperation with the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, to continue its special information programme for the biennium 2010-2011. It encouraged the Department to find ways for the media and civil society to engage in open and positive discussions to explore means for encouraging people-to-people dialogue and promote peace and mutual understanding in the region.
Next, the Assembly adopted by recorded vote of 164 in favour to 7 against (Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and United States) with 4 abstentions (Cameroon, Canada, Fiji and Tonga), a resolution on the Peaceful Settlement of the question of Palestine (document A/64/L.23) (Annex IV), by which it reaffirmed the illegality of Israeli actions intended at changing the status of Jerusalem, including measures such as the so-called E-1 plan [which aims to connect Jerusalem to the West Bank and settlement of Ma’ale Adumim].
It also reaffirmed the illegality of other unilateral measures that are contrary to international law and endeavour to alter the character, status and demographic composition of the city and the territory as a whole, among them, Israel’s construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem. It expressed deep concern at the continued Israeli policy of closures and restrictions on the movement of persons and goods, medical and humanitarian personnel and goods, continued establishment of checkpoints and imposition of a permit regime throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, which had created a dire humanitarian crisis.
Also by the text, the Assembly reaffirmed its full support for the Middle East peace process, based on the relevant United Nations resolutions, Madrid terms of reference, the Arab Peace Initiative, the Quartet Road Map and existing agreements between the Israeli and Palestinian sides. It encouraged continued regional and international efforts to promote the Arab Peace Initiative; urged parties to undertake immediate steps in follow-up to their joint understanding reached at the 2007 Annapolis Conference; and encouraged the convening of an international conference in Moscow.
The Assembly also stressed the need for advancing reconstruction in the Gaza Strip; called on Israel to comply with its obligations under international law; and reiterated the demand for complete cessation of all Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the Syrian Golan. Reaffirming its commitment to the two-State solution of Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security within recognized borders, based on pre-1967 borders, the Assembly stressed the need for Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem.
Finally by the text, the Assembly stressed the need for justly resolving the problem of Palestine refugees; called on parties to resume direct peace negotiations towards conclusion of a final peaceful settlement; urged States to speed provision of economic humanitarian and technical assistance to Palestinians; encouraged the Quartet’s Special Representative to strengthen Palestinian institutions and requested the Secretary-General to continue efforts towards the attainment of a peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine.
Speaking after the vote, the representative of Israel said his Government had voted against the resolutions, as it had done in the past, because they did not reflect the reality of the region. They reflected a one-sided agenda repeated year in and year out. They did not help the conflict. People in the region needed peace based on mutual recognition, which would result from negotiations. They did not need another biased and one-sided General Assembly resolution. The Middle East required an agreement that would allow countries to live in peace.
Speaking in explanation of its vote on resolutions A/64/L.21 and A/64/L.22, the representative of New Zealand said his country had consistently supported negotiations toward a two-state solution to the Middle East conflict. New Zealand said it was essential to approach the issues raised in these resolutions with balance and regard for the intent of the text in question.
Regarding the resolution on the special information programme, New Zealand supported the dissemination of balanced information and welcomed this resolution’s focus on promoting dialogue between the two sides. While he voted in favour of this resolution, he called on the department’s special information programme to carry out its mandate in a manner that reflected the full spectrum of perspectives.
Regarding the resolution on the Division for Palestinian Rights, New Zealand was not convinced that the Division was a constructive use of resources and it did little to contribute to the Middle East peace process. It voted against the resolution. But, that did not detract from its strong support for Palestinian self-determination.
Speaking on behalf of the European Union, the representative of Sweden explained its vote regarding the resolution of the “Peaceful settlement of the Question of Palestine” (A/64/L.23). The Union urged the Palestinian Authority and Israel to enter into serious peace negotiations as soon as possible.
The European Union was deeply concerned about the continued settlement activities and evictions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem and reiterated that they were an obstacle to peace. It was also concerned about the recent developments in East Jerusalem and was closely following the situation around the Al Aqsa mosque and Temple Mount/Haram al Sharif.
It was gravely concerned about the humanitarian situation in Gaza, and what was, in effect, a blockade. It consistently called for the immediate openings of crossings to let humanitarian aid, commercial goods and people go into and out of Gaza. Without that, reconstruction and economic recovery would not be possible.
Action on Draft Resolutions under Agenda Item 15 on Situation in Middle East
The Assembly then turned its attention to the situation in the Middle East.
By a recorded vote of 163 in favour, to 7 against (Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Panama, United States), with 5 in abstention (Australia, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Fiji, Tonga), the Assembly then adopted the resolution on Jerusalem (document A/64/L.24) (Annex V), by which it expressed grave concern at any action taken by any body -- Governmental or non-governmental -- in violation of resolutions 181 (II) (1947), 36/120 (1981), 56/31 (2001) and 478 (1980). It expressed grave concern at Israel’s continuation of illegal settlement activities, including the so-called E-1 plan, construction of the wall around East Jerusalem and restricted access to and residence in East Jerusalem.
Further by the text, the Assembly reiterated its determination that any actions taken by Israel to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on Jerusalem were illegal and, therefore, null and void. It called on Israel to immediately cease all such illegal measures and stressed that a comprehensive, just and lasting solution to the question of Jerusalem should take into account the legitimate concerns of both Palestinians and Israelis and should include internationally guaranteed provisions to ensure freedom of religion of its inhabitants. Finally, it requested the Secretary-General to report back to it at its sixty-fifth session on the implementation of the resolution.
Next, by a recorded vote of 116 in favour, to 7 against (Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 51 in abstention, the Assembly adopted a resolution on The Syrian Golan (document A/64/L.25) (Annex VI), by which it declared that Israel had failed to comply with Security Council resolution 497 (1981) and that the Israeli decision of 14 December 1981 to impose its laws on the occupied Syrian Golan was null and void. It reaffirmed its determination that all relevant provisions annexed to the Hague Convention of 1907 and Geneva Convention relative to the protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War continue to apply.
Byrnzie, I'm pretty sure that nowhere in this giant list you posted does it say that they were voting on the adoption of 242, nor does it say anywhere that they voted on a measure calling on Israel to withdraw from ALL of the West Bank. If you're going to post something to support your points please actually do so and don't waste my time. I'd also like to know who the abstentions are, and who the positive votes are.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Comments
You are wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and ... id_analogy
According to the UN Treaty Organization, the fact that the Apartheid Convention is intended to apply to situations other than South Africa is confirmed by its endorsement in a wider context in instruments adopted before and after the fall of apartheid. In 1977, Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 recognized apartheid as a “grave breach” of the Protocol (art. 85, paragraph 4 (c)) without any geographical limitation. Apartheid features as a crime in the Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind adopted by the International Law Commission on first reading in 1991 without any reference to South Africa and in 1996 the Draft Code adopted on second reading recognized institutionalized racial discrimination as species of crime against humanity in article 18 (f) and explained in its commentary that this “is in fact the crime of apartheid under a more general denomination”(Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-eighth session (A/51/10), p. 49). In 1998, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court included the “crime of apartheid” as a form of crime against humanity (art. 7). It may be concluded that the Apartheid Convention is dead as far as the original cause for its creation – apartheid in South Africa – is concerned, but that it lives on as a species of the crime against humanity, under both customary international law and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.[187]
Israel has been accused by Palestinian organizations and their supporters of the crime of apartheid under international law. For example, in 2006, at the UN-sponsored International Conference of Civil Society in Support of the Palestinian People, Phyllis Bennis, co-chair of the International Coordinating Network on Palestine, opened the speeches of the civil society at the first plenary of the conference by alleging "Once again, the crime of apartheid [is] being committed by a United Nations Member State [Israel]."[9]
The crime of apartheid first became part of international law in 1973 when the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (ICSPCA) was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. It defined it as "inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group ... over another racial group ... and systematically oppressing them."[188]
In 2002, a statutory definition of the crime of apartheid was provided by Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The crime of apartheid was included as one of several crimes against humanity, and encompassed inhumane acts such as torture, murder, forcible transfer, imprisonment, or persecution of an identifiable group on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, or other grounds, "committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."[189] This change to defining the crime of apartheid as discrimination on the grounds of national, ethnic or cultural group rather than racial group alone increased the applicability of the law to Israeli policy in the West Bank.[188]
Once the crime and its elements had been included in the criminal statute, even countries that had originally objected to the apartheid convention, like the United States, recognized the customary prohibition against apartheid. The U.S. now allows aliens to file suits in U.S. courts for violations.[190][191]
No mechanism exists to prosecute any state for the crime of apartheid, except referral from the UN Security Council to the International Criminal Court, and no such referral has ever taken place. However, many of the member states have given their national courts subject matter jurisdiction over crimes defined in the Rome Statute under the principle of universal jurisdiction.[192]
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShAr ... mNo=292536
Sharon's Bantustans are far from Copenhagen's hope
By Akiva Eldar - 13/05/2003
During his visit two weeks ago to Israel, former Italian prime minister Massimo D'Alema hosted a small group of Israelis - public figures and former diplomats - to a dinner at a Jerusalem hotel.
The conversation quickly turned to the conciliatory interviews Prime Minister Ariel Sharon gave to the press for their Independence Day editions. One of the Israelis, of the type for whom it's second nature, no matter who is in government, to explain and defend Israeli policy, expressed full confidence in Sharon's peace rhetoric. He said the prime minister understands the solution to the conflict is the establishment of a Palestinian state beside Israel.
The former premier from the Italian left said that three or four years ago he had a long conversation with Sharon, who was in Rome for a brief visit. According to D'Alema, Sharon explained at length that the Bantustan model was the most appropriate solution to the conflict.
The defender of Israel quickly protested. "Surely that was your personal interpretation of what Sharon said."
D'Alema didn't give in. "No, sir, that is not interpretation. That is a precise quotation of your prime minister."
Supplementary evidence backing D'Alema's story can be found in an expensively produced brochure prepared for Tourism Minister Benny Elon, who is promoting a two-state solution - Israel and Jordan. Under the title "The Road to War: a tiny protectorate, overpopulated, carved up and demilitarized," the Moledet Party leader presents "the map of the Palestinian state, according to Sharon's proposal." Sharon's map is surprisingly similar to the plan for protectorates in South Africa in the early 1960s. Even the number of cantons is the same - 10 in the West Bank (and one more in Gaza). Dr. Alon Liel, a former Israeli ambassador to South Africa, notes that the South Africans only managed to create four of their 10 planned Bantustans.
The Bantustan model, says Liel, was the ugliest of all the tricks used to perpetuate the apartheid regime in most of South Africa's territory. By 1986, unrest in the Bantustans turned into ongoing rioting and terror, which descended into coups in the so-called independent regimes, and South African intervention. The minuscule support the Bantustan governments did enjoy evaporated, so by January 1994, they were finally dismantled and became integrated into the united South Africa of black majority rule.
No country recognized the Bantustans nor did any drop embargoes against South Africa. But veteran leaders of the black struggle against apartheid remember that business people from Israel and Taiwan were the only foreigners who developed business relations with the Bantustan governments. The permission given to the largest of the Bantustans, Bophutatswana, to open a diplomatic office in Tel Aviv infuriated American opponents of the apartheid regime, including Senator Ted Kennedy, and some of the Jewish congressmen of the time.
An Israeli who spent many years nurturing Israeli relations with Africa was also at the dinner hosted by the Italian prime minister. He said that whenever he happened to encounter Sharon, he would be interrogated at length about the history of the protectorates and their structures.
Fuck Yosi's thread. Israel is a murderous rogue state.
If one day this country begins abiding by the rule of international and makes reparations for it's 40 year criminal occupation and all of the war crimes and crimes against humanity that have gone with it, then we can begin to look at the place differently. But until that day Israel deserves no respect what-so-fucking-ever.
+1
You're right, let's loathe an entire country, that's a helpful approach. This is ultimately why some of us cannot get on the same page as you guys, despite the 70-80% or so agreement across our positions on the topic.
Apartheid South Africa was also widely loathed the world over - despite the continued support it received from the U.S right up until the end of the Apartheid regime - and it was this loathing, and intolerance of it's racism and disregard for international law, that ultimately led to the sanctions and boycotts against it which finally brought it down.
But maybe you think Israel deserves to be treated differently?
I'd actually like to see more international pressure on Israel to cease settlement expansion and withdraw to pre-1967 borders, assuming that said pressure is rational and not of the "holocaust didn't happen" variety that comes out of certain quarters in Iran. Does this require pointed comparisons to South Africa? No. Effective political action does not have to be predicated around buzzwords, and I maintain my position that there are differences between the previous South African situation and that of the Palestinians.
As long as the Arabs in Israel do not have the same rights and opportunities as Jews in Israel, it is an apartheid state.
Hopefully when you calm down from the frothing rage you seem to be in you'll realize that the argument you just made is logically flawed by the fact that it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Your argument is essentially that Israel is an apartheid state because if you scream long enough and loudly enough about Israel being an apartheid state, and eventually the whole world believes you and treats Israel the way they did Apartheid South Africa, then Israel is an apartheid state. Well, first there's the practical fact that this hasn't happened. The whole world doesn't feel that way, nor does it seem to be inclining in that direction, so your entire argument is premised on a possible future event. Furthermore, it makes no sense in principle to define the term by the "reaction of the world to Israel," which, since you clearly can't speak for the opinion of the entire world, really means your reaction to Israel. You are essentially making the argument that Israel is an apartheid country because you think they are, but scaled up to global proportions.
I posted the definition of the word above. I suggest you read it. It applies to the occupied territories. Here, I'll post it again seeing as you chose to ignore it the first time:
In 2002, a statutory definition of the crime of apartheid was provided by Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The crime of apartheid was included as one of several crimes against humanity, and encompassed inhumane acts such as torture, murder, forcible transfer, imprisonment, or persecution of an identifiable group on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, or other grounds, "committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."[189] This change to defining the crime of apartheid as discrimination on the grounds of national, ethnic or cultural group rather than racial group alone increased the applicability of the law to Israeli policy in the West Bank.
As for the world supporting an end to Israels Apartheid state, it already does, as is proven by the vote count on Resolution 242 every year which shows that only Israel and the U.S oppose a peaceful settlement along the June 1967 border and an end to the criminal occupation.
From a legal standpoint Arabs do have all the same rights. There is no legal discrimination against Arabs in Israel. You couldn't, for example legally refuse to serve an Arab in your store because he's an Arab. As for Arabs not having equal opportunities as Jews in Israel, that's not a definition of apartheid, it's a definition of discrimination, and possibly not even that, since it could just as easily be a definition for any country that isn't perfectly socialist and democratic (in the political science sense of a "perfect democracy"). Any state where there are any definable groups that have fewer opportunities then the rest of society, whether it is Blacks in America, Turks in Germany, North Africans in France, Women in Saudi Arabia and Yemen, the Poor every-fucking-where, would by this definition be an "apartheid state." I'm fairly certain that when something is defined by a characteristic that is universal that definition is invalid. The whole purpose of definition is to "define" something, to separate something out and to show how it is unique in some way from everything else. If Apartheid means unequal opportunities then apartheid literally has no meaning as a practical term. It's just some philosophical idea, like the Platonic Ideal.
You keep mentioning this vote. When does this vote take place? What are the details? If I want to look up this vote what would I type in? Did this vote ask the members of the UN to vote on the proposition that "Israel is an apartheid state?" Cause otherwise you can't logically use this vote as a means of arguing that Israel is an apartheid state. Plus there is still the philosophical problem of defining the term "apartheid" by the feelings of a hundred+ UN representatives, or I suppose the governments of the countries they represent, because we all know that governments always make decisions for perfectly pure reasons (except, of course, Israel and the U.S.).
E.g. when a court decides to evict a palestinian family because it rules that jews are the rightful owners. :roll:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-Rcp3vWNUs
Sounds like apartheid to me. Also, state school funding for Arab children is less than half of the funding for Jewish children and when I talk about opportunities, I'm talking about basic education - a right. So don't tell me Arab residents have the same rights and that there is no legal discrimation. These are just a couple of examples, there are plenty more, e.g. the shameful treatment of the Bedouin population, etc.
Israel rejects bill allocating equal land to Jews and Arabs
By Jonathan Liss
The Ministerial Committee for Legislation on Sunday rejected a bill proposed by MK Ahmed Tibi (Ra'am-Ta'al) proposing that the state enforce equal allocation of land to Jews and Arabs.
"Yet again, the Israeli government has proven that it is avoiding the principle of civil equality," Tibi said in response to the ruling. "The same government which approved the selection bill of [Jewish] MKs David Rotem and Israel Hasson, ignores Arabs' rights, and hasn't approved the building of a new Arab village since 1948. The government failed at the challenge I placed before it, and that saddens me."
The bill's authors stressed the importance of it in an explanation to the committee.
Advertisement
"Since the foundation of the state, the Israel Lands Administration is solely used as Jewish land administration. The director of the Israel Lands Administration has used all the tactics, with the help of the Jewish Agency, to allocate state land only to Jews. Despite the bitter attempt over the decades, not even one Arab town has been established since the state's foundation. Therefore a bill must be passed which stipulates that the Israel Lands Administration will serve all the state's citizens without discrimination on religion or nationality, and will promise an equal allocation of land to better the Arab population of Israel."
Tibi's proposal was intended to counter a bill passed two weeks ago which states that reception committees of Israeli communities can decide who will reside in their towns. One consequence of that bill is that Israeli Arabs would not be able to live in those towns if the reception committees decide so.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, keep struggling to wriggle out of the fact that Israel is an Apartheid state. I've proved it above in more ways than one, and your squirming efforts to avoid the facts make no difference.
As for the U.N 242 vote, it's not easy to find the details online, probably because some people would rather brush the vote count under the table.
Here's what I did find though which gives you an idea of who the rejectionists are:
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/ga10809.doc.htm
16 January 2009
General Assembly Plenary
Tenth Emergency Special Session
34th & 35th Meetings (AM & PM)
GENERAL ASSEMBLY DEMANDS FULL RESPECT FOR SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 1860
CALLING FOR IMMEDIATE GAZA CEASEFIRE, AS EMERGENCY SESSION CONCLUDES
Resolution Adopted by Vote of 143-3-9, After Two-Day Debate;
Expresses Grave Concern about Developments on Ground since Council Text’s Adoption
The General Assembly, gravely concerned about the intensified military operations in the Gaza Strip and heavy civilian casualties since last week’s adoption of resolution 1860 by the Security Council, this evening demanded full respect for that text, including its urgent call for an immediate, durable and fully respected ceasefire, leading to the full withdrawal of Israeli forces and unimpeded provision of humanitarian assistance.
Following a two-day emergency special session convened to address the three-week old crisis, the Assembly adopted its own resolution on the issue by a vote of 143 in favour to 3 against (United States, Israel, Nauru), with 9 abstentions (Australia, Canada, Côte d’Ivoire, Ecuador, Indonesia, Iran, Nigeria, Syria, Venezuela).
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/ga10896.doc.htm
2 December 2009
Sixty-fourth General Assembly
Plenary
54th Meeting (AM)
The report also contains the observations of the Secretary-General on the current state of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and international efforts to move the peace process forward. In the report, which covers the period from September 2008 to August 2009, the Secretary-General says the United Nations will continue to work towards the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine. The framework for peace remains unchanged: the creation of two States, an independent and viable Palestine living side-by-side in peace and security with Israel, on the basis of the principle of land for peace, and a just and comprehensive regional peace consistent with Security Council resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003), and 1850 (2008), as well as the Road Map and the Arab Peace Initiative.
Following Two-Day Debate, General Assembly Adopts Six Draft Resolutions on Question of Palestine, Middle East
Address: Peaceful Settlement, Palestinian Rights Committee, Jerusalem,
Special Information Programme, Palestinian Rights Division, Syrian Globe
Fresh from observing the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, the General Assembly this morning concluded two days of plenary debate on the question of Palestine and the broader situation in the Middle East with the adoption, by recorded vote, of six resolutions aimed at promoting the inalienable rights of Palestinians -– particularly to statehood –- and permanently ending Israel’s “illegal” actions in Jerusalem and Syrian Golan.
In early action, the Assembly turned its attention to Palestine with the adoption of four texts. It first adopted, by a recorded vote of 109 in favour to 8 against (Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States) with 55 abstentions, a resolution on the “Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People” (document A/64/L.20) (for voting details, see Annex I). By that text, it asked the Committee to continue to exert all efforts to promote the realization of Palestinians’ inalienable rights, including to self-determination.
By a recorded vote of 112 in favour to 9 against (Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, New Zealand, United States) with 54 abstentions (Annex II), the Assembly next adopted a resolution on the “Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat” (document A/64/L.21), by which it requested the Secretary-General to continue to provide the Division with the necessary resources and ensure that it continued to carry out its programme of work.
Next, by a recorded vote of 162 in favour to 8 against (Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 5 abstentions (Benin, Cameroon, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Tonga) (Annex III), the Assembly adopted a resolution on the “Special Information Programme on the Question of Palestine of the Department of Public Information of the Secretariat” (document A/64/L.22), by which it requested the Department to continue its special information programme for the 2010-2011 biennium.
The Assembly also adopted by a recorded vote of 164 in favour to 7 against (Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States) with 4 abstentions (Cameroon, Canada, Fiji, Tonga) (Annex IV), a resolution on the “Peaceful Settlement of the question of Palestine” (document A/64/L.23), by which it reaffirmed the illegality of a host of Israeli actions aimed at altering the character, status and demographic composition of Jerusalem and the territory as a whole, among them, Israel’s construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem.
More broadly by the text, the Assembly reaffirmed its full support for the Middle East peace process, based on relevant United Nations resolutions, the Madrid terms of reference, the Arab Peace Initiative, the Quartet Road Map and existing agreements between the Israeli and Palestinian sides. It urged the parties to take immediate steps in follow-up to their joint understanding reached at the 2007 Annapolis Conference, and encouraged the convening of an international conference in Moscow, as envisioned by Security Council resolution 1850 (2008).
Speaking before the votes, the United States representative said his Government was deeply saddened to be presented with unbalanced resolutions, which unlike the Assembly’s actions vis-à-vis other States, placed demands on Israel and failed to acknowledge that both sides had obligations. While the United States accepted the principle that the Assembly might look into the practices of States, resolutions under this item formed a clear pattern of institutional bias directed at one Member State.
Speaking after the votes, the representative of Israel said his Government had voted against the resolutions, which reflected a one-sided agenda that had been repeated year in and year out. People in the region did not need another biased General Assembly resolution; they needed peace based on mutual recognition, which would result from negotiations.
Following that action, the Assembly adopted two texts on the situation in the Middle East.
By a recorded vote of 163 in favour to 7 against (Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Panama, United States), with 5 abstentions (Australia, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Fiji, Tonga), the Assembly then adopted the resolution on “Jerusalem” (document A/64/L.24) (Annex V), by which it expressed grave concern at any action taken by any body -- Governmental or non-governmental -- in violation of resolutions 181 (II) (1947), 36/120 (1981), 56/31 (2001) and 478 (1980).
Next, by a recorded vote of 116 in favour to 7 against (Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 51 abstentions, the Assembly adopted a resolution on “The Syrian Golan” (document A/64/L.25) (Annex VI), by which it declared that Israel had failed to comply with Security Council resolution 497 (1981) and that the Israeli decision of 14 December 1981 to impose its laws on the occupied Syrian Golan was null and void. Continued occupation of the Syrian Golan was a stumbling block to achieving a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the region. It called on Israel to resume talks on the Syrian and Lebanese tracks and demanded its withdrawal from all the occupied Syrian Golan to the line of 4 June 1967.
Speaking after action, the observer of Palestine said the resolutions sent a strong signal on the importance of upholding the clear principles of international law. The building of illegal settlements, the building of an illegal wall, and the annexation of East Jerusalem were all obstacles to peace. The resolutions were not one-sided. “We could not all of us be wrong”, he said. Israel was acting as if it was above international law and it was high time to bring it into compliance.
Also speaking in explanation of vote after the vote on the resolutions related to Palestine were the representatives of New Zealand and Sweden (on behalf of the European Union).
Also speaking in explanation of the vote after the vote on the resolutions related to the Middle East were the representatives of Argentina (also speaking for Brazil), Iran and Syria.
The General Assembly will reconvene at 3 p.m. Wednesday, 2 December to take up the reports of its First Committee (Disarmament and International Security).
Background
The General Assembly met today to take action on draft resolutions relating to the question of Palestine and the situation in the Middle East. (For summaries of the resolutions and debate, please see press releases [GA/10894] and [GA/10895]).
Action on Draft Resolutions under Agenda Item 16 on Question of Palestine
Resuming its consideration of the question of Palestine, the Assembly first turned to a draft text on the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (document A/64/L.20).
Speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, the United States representative said, on the situation in the Middle East, his Government had clearly stated that there should be two states living side by side in peace and security. The United States was deeply saddened to be presented with unbalanced resolutions, which unlike the Assembly’s actions vis-à-vis other States, placed demands on Israel and failed to acknowledge that both sides had obligations. While the United States accepted the principle that the Assembly might look into the practices of States, resolutions under this item formed a clear pattern of institutional bias directed at one Member State. Of particular concern were three resolutions on the entities established more than a generation ago that perpetuated that bias.
He said the millions of dollars spent on the Division of Palestinian Rights, the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices could be better directed towards other issues, including direct assistance to needy Palestinians, as could staff resources. The United States had provided significant financial support to the Palestinian Authority and to Palestinian refugees. The United States was the largest single donor to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). He reiterated the call for all to review the continued existence of those bodies with a sharp focus on what, if anything, they contributed to finding a solution to the Middle East conflict.
In addition to those three resolutions, the Assembly would consider others that would prejudge the outcome of permanent status issues, he said. They called into question the United Nations’ credibility. Through good faith negotiations, parties could agree on an outcome that reconciled the goals of a viable Palestinian state, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state living in secure and recognized borders. The United States’ commitment to achieving a solution of two states living side by side in peace was unwavering.
By a recorded vote of 109 in favour to 8 against (Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States) with 55 in abstention, the Assembly then adopted the text on the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (document A/64/L.20) (Annex I), by which it asked the Committee to continue to exert all efforts to promote the realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including their right to self-determination. It authorized the Committee to adjust its approved work programme after considering developments and report to the Assembly.
Further by the text, the Assembly requested the Committee to continue its cooperation and support to Palestinian and other civil organizations, as well as involve additional civil society organizations and parliamentarians in its work to mobilize support for the Palestinian people. It requested the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, and other United Nations bodies associated with the question of Palestine, to cooperate fully with the Committee. Finally, it requested the Secretary-General to circulate the report of the Committee to all competent bodies of the United Nations and urge them to take the necessary action, as appropriate.
The Assembly then adopted by a recorded vote of 112 in favour to 9 against (Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, New Zealand and United States) with 54 in abstention, a resolution on the Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat (document A/64/L.21) (Annex II), by which it requested the Secretary-General to continue to provide the Division with the necessary resources and ensure that it continued to carry out its programme of work. It requested the Division, as part of the observance of the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People on 29 November, to continue to organize an annual exhibit on Palestinian rights or a cultural event in cooperation with the Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine.
By a recorded vote of 162 in favour to 8 against (Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and United States) with 5 in abstentions (Benin, Cameroon, Fiji, Papua New Guinea and Tonga), the Assembly next adopted a resolution on the Special Information Programme on the Question of Palestine (document A/64/L.22) (Annex III), by which it requested the Department of Public Information, in full cooperation with the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, to continue its special information programme for the biennium 2010-2011. It encouraged the Department to find ways for the media and civil society to engage in open and positive discussions to explore means for encouraging people-to-people dialogue and promote peace and mutual understanding in the region.
Next, the Assembly adopted by recorded vote of 164 in favour to 7 against (Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and United States) with 4 abstentions (Cameroon, Canada, Fiji and Tonga), a resolution on the Peaceful Settlement of the question of Palestine (document A/64/L.23) (Annex IV), by which it reaffirmed the illegality of Israeli actions intended at changing the status of Jerusalem, including measures such as the so-called E-1 plan [which aims to connect Jerusalem to the West Bank and settlement of Ma’ale Adumim].
It also reaffirmed the illegality of other unilateral measures that are contrary to international law and endeavour to alter the character, status and demographic composition of the city and the territory as a whole, among them, Israel’s construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem. It expressed deep concern at the continued Israeli policy of closures and restrictions on the movement of persons and goods, medical and humanitarian personnel and goods, continued establishment of checkpoints and imposition of a permit regime throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, which had created a dire humanitarian crisis.
Also by the text, the Assembly reaffirmed its full support for the Middle East peace process, based on the relevant United Nations resolutions, Madrid terms of reference, the Arab Peace Initiative, the Quartet Road Map and existing agreements between the Israeli and Palestinian sides. It encouraged continued regional and international efforts to promote the Arab Peace Initiative; urged parties to undertake immediate steps in follow-up to their joint understanding reached at the 2007 Annapolis Conference; and encouraged the convening of an international conference in Moscow.
The Assembly also stressed the need for advancing reconstruction in the Gaza Strip; called on Israel to comply with its obligations under international law; and reiterated the demand for complete cessation of all Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the Syrian Golan. Reaffirming its commitment to the two-State solution of Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security within recognized borders, based on pre-1967 borders, the Assembly stressed the need for Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem.
Finally by the text, the Assembly stressed the need for justly resolving the problem of Palestine refugees; called on parties to resume direct peace negotiations towards conclusion of a final peaceful settlement; urged States to speed provision of economic humanitarian and technical assistance to Palestinians; encouraged the Quartet’s Special Representative to strengthen Palestinian institutions and requested the Secretary-General to continue efforts towards the attainment of a peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine.
Speaking after the vote, the representative of Israel said his Government had voted against the resolutions, as it had done in the past, because they did not reflect the reality of the region. They reflected a one-sided agenda repeated year in and year out. They did not help the conflict. People in the region needed peace based on mutual recognition, which would result from negotiations. They did not need another biased and one-sided General Assembly resolution. The Middle East required an agreement that would allow countries to live in peace.
Speaking in explanation of its vote on resolutions A/64/L.21 and A/64/L.22, the representative of New Zealand said his country had consistently supported negotiations toward a two-state solution to the Middle East conflict. New Zealand said it was essential to approach the issues raised in these resolutions with balance and regard for the intent of the text in question.
Regarding the resolution on the special information programme, New Zealand supported the dissemination of balanced information and welcomed this resolution’s focus on promoting dialogue between the two sides. While he voted in favour of this resolution, he called on the department’s special information programme to carry out its mandate in a manner that reflected the full spectrum of perspectives.
Regarding the resolution on the Division for Palestinian Rights, New Zealand was not convinced that the Division was a constructive use of resources and it did little to contribute to the Middle East peace process. It voted against the resolution. But, that did not detract from its strong support for Palestinian self-determination.
Speaking on behalf of the European Union, the representative of Sweden explained its vote regarding the resolution of the “Peaceful settlement of the Question of Palestine” (A/64/L.23). The Union urged the Palestinian Authority and Israel to enter into serious peace negotiations as soon as possible.
The European Union was deeply concerned about the continued settlement activities and evictions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem and reiterated that they were an obstacle to peace. It was also concerned about the recent developments in East Jerusalem and was closely following the situation around the Al Aqsa mosque and Temple Mount/Haram al Sharif.
It was gravely concerned about the humanitarian situation in Gaza, and what was, in effect, a blockade. It consistently called for the immediate openings of crossings to let humanitarian aid, commercial goods and people go into and out of Gaza. Without that, reconstruction and economic recovery would not be possible.
Action on Draft Resolutions under Agenda Item 15 on Situation in Middle East
The Assembly then turned its attention to the situation in the Middle East.
By a recorded vote of 163 in favour, to 7 against (Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Panama, United States), with 5 in abstention (Australia, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Fiji, Tonga), the Assembly then adopted the resolution on Jerusalem (document A/64/L.24) (Annex V), by which it expressed grave concern at any action taken by any body -- Governmental or non-governmental -- in violation of resolutions 181 (II) (1947), 36/120 (1981), 56/31 (2001) and 478 (1980). It expressed grave concern at Israel’s continuation of illegal settlement activities, including the so-called E-1 plan, construction of the wall around East Jerusalem and restricted access to and residence in East Jerusalem.
Further by the text, the Assembly reiterated its determination that any actions taken by Israel to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on Jerusalem were illegal and, therefore, null and void. It called on Israel to immediately cease all such illegal measures and stressed that a comprehensive, just and lasting solution to the question of Jerusalem should take into account the legitimate concerns of both Palestinians and Israelis and should include internationally guaranteed provisions to ensure freedom of religion of its inhabitants. Finally, it requested the Secretary-General to report back to it at its sixty-fifth session on the implementation of the resolution.
Next, by a recorded vote of 116 in favour, to 7 against (Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 51 in abstention, the Assembly adopted a resolution on The Syrian Golan (document A/64/L.25) (Annex VI), by which it declared that Israel had failed to comply with Security Council resolution 497 (1981) and that the Israeli decision of 14 December 1981 to impose its laws on the occupied Syrian Golan was null and void. It reaffirmed its determination that all relevant provisions annexed to the Hague Convention of 1907 and Geneva Convention relative to the protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War continue to apply.
You know, I am starting to think that acting like a douchebag is a paid job description for you. Dumbest ideas from both sides? I don't even know what you're talking about and what the hell your problem is, and suffice to say, I am not real interested in finding out.
Apartheid does not mean discrimination. The two words are not synonyms. Apartheid involves discrimination, but the fact that there is discrimination is not sufficient grounds to apply the label apartheid. That's like saying that killing a single person is an act of genocide. Genocide involves killing individuals, but clearly killing one person is not sufficient grounds for the term genocide to apply.
but what Israel is doing IS in line with what the UN and ICC call apartheid, right?
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
i've already posted it twice and both times you ignored it, do a search for it
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
O.k:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and ... id_analogy
'According to the UN Treaty Organization, the fact that the Apartheid Convention is intended to apply to situations other than South Africa is confirmed by its endorsement in a wider context in instruments adopted before and after the fall of apartheid. In 1977, Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 recognized apartheid as a “grave breach” of the Protocol (art. 85, paragraph 4 (c)) without any geographical limitation. Apartheid features as a crime in the Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind adopted by the International Law Commission on first reading in 1991 without any reference to South Africa and in 1996 the Draft Code adopted on second reading recognized institutionalized racial discrimination as species of crime against humanity in article 18 (f) and explained in its commentary that this “is in fact the crime of apartheid under a more general denomination”(Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-eighth session (A/51/10), p. 49). In 1998, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court included the “crime of apartheid” as a form of crime against humanity (art. 7). It may be concluded that the Apartheid Convention is dead as far as the original cause for its creation – apartheid in South Africa – is concerned, but that it lives on as a species of the crime against humanity, under both customary international law and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.[187]
Israel has been accused by Palestinian organizations and their supporters of the crime of apartheid under international law. For example, in 2006, at the UN-sponsored International Conference of Civil Society in Support of the Palestinian People, Phyllis Bennis, co-chair of the International Coordinating Network on Palestine, opened the speeches of the civil society at the first plenary of the conference by alleging "Once again, the crime of apartheid [is] being committed by a United Nations Member State [Israel]."[9]
The crime of apartheid first became part of international law in 1973 when the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (ICSPCA) was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. It defined it as "inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group ... over another racial group ... and systematically oppressing them."[188]
In 2002, a statutory definition of the crime of apartheid was provided by Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The crime of apartheid was included as one of several crimes against humanity, and encompassed inhumane acts such as torture, murder, forcible transfer, imprisonment, or persecution of an identifiable group on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, or other grounds, "committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."[189] This change to defining the crime of apartheid as discrimination on the grounds of national, ethnic or cultural group rather than racial group alone increased the applicability of the law to Israeli policy in the West Bank.[188]
Once the crime and its elements had been included in the criminal statute, even countries that had originally objected to the apartheid convention, like the United States, recognized the customary prohibition against apartheid. The U.S. now allows aliens to file suits in U.S. courts for violations.[190][191]
No mechanism exists to prosecute any state for the crime of apartheid, except referral from the UN Security Council to the International Criminal Court, and no such referral has ever taken place. However, many of the member states have given their national courts subject matter jurisdiction over crimes defined in the Rome Statute under the principle of universal jurisdiction.[192]
oh, i agree they don't dislike them because they are Palestinians, they dislike them because they won't leave
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Which is why its possible to argue against the use of this term in this situation ... Apartheid focuses on group membership specifically, not other reasons for oppression.
it's easy, go to the top of this thread and type 'icc' in the search box, it will now find 3 posts in this thread, the 1 at the bottom is it. or you can search in the moving train forum and find it in this thread and at least 1 other
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
fine, i will just repost it, this is what the UN and ICC call apartheid, both of them name a few things Israel does against the Palestinians, it doesn't just have to be a perfect recreation of South Africa
ICSPCA definition of the crime of apartheid
Article II of the ICSPCA defines the crime of apartheid as follows:
International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid,
Article II[1]
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:
Denial to a member or members of a racial group or groups of the right to life and liberty of person
By murder of members of a racial group or groups;
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;
By arbitrary arrest and illegal imprisonment of the members of a racial group or groups;
Deliberate imposition on a racial group or groups of living conditions calculated to cause its or their physical destruction in whole or in part;
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;
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;
Exploitation of the labour of the members of a racial group or groups, in particular by submitting them to forced labour;
Persecution of organizations and persons, by depriving them of fundamental rights and freedoms, because they oppose apartheid.
[edit]ICC definition of the crime of apartheid
Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defines crimes against humanity as:
Article 7
Crimes against humanity
For the purpose of this Statute, 'crime against humanity' means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
Murder;
Extermination;
Enslavement;
Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
Torture;
Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
Enforced disappearance of persons;
The crime of apartheid;
Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.[12]
Later in Article 7, the crime of apartheid is defined as:
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.[12]
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Byrnzie, I'm pretty sure that nowhere in this giant list you posted does it say that they were voting on the adoption of 242, nor does it say anywhere that they voted on a measure calling on Israel to withdraw from ALL of the West Bank. If you're going to post something to support your points please actually do so and don't waste my time. I'd also like to know who the abstentions are, and who the positive votes are.