Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forum
Undercover Israeli troops raid hospital, kill Palestinian
Source: Reuters
Undercover Israeli troops raid hospital, kill Palestinian
HEBRON, WEST BANK
Israeli undercover forces raided a hospital in the West Bank on Thursday, shooting dead a Palestinian during an attempt to detain another man suspected of carrying out a stabbing, the Palestinian health ministry and doctors said.
The Israeli army confirmed the raid and shooting but did not have details of the man's condition. It said the raid was carried out to detain Azzam al-Shalalda, 27, who was suspected of stabbing an Israeli settler two weeks ago in the West Bank.
The director of Hebron's al-Ahly hospital, Jehad Shawar, told Palestine radio 20-30 men arrived at the clinic in two mini vans at around three o'clock in the morning. They entered with someone in a wheelchair pretending to be pregnant.
CCTV footage from inside the hospital showed a large group of men armed with pistols and rifles, some with beards and others with keffiyeh scarves on their heads, walking through the corridors telling hospital workers to get out of the way.
[font size=1]-snip-[/font]
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/12/us-israel-palestinians-violence-idUSKCN0T10JX20151112
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)This is how an apartheid state operates.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Do you have a blueprint on how an apartheid state operates?
Share it please.
Because this seems to be counter terrorism.
Not a "shoplifting " crime - USA deals with terrorism same way - Osama Bin Laden wasn't brought back to the USA for trial - unless you're claiming the USA is an apartheid state?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)is a wounded settler.
No effort to investigate or prosecute when it's settlers committing multiple murders.
Seems apartheidish to me.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Same thing exactly...
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)King_David
(14,851 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)these people wouldn't know an apartheid state if it smacked them in the face. If they did, they would be embarrassed at what they support while condemning Israel.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Palestinian control. Try again.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)No doubt anyone who is capable of rational thought on this issue is rolling their eyes at your comical response, but here's something to help enhance your understanding on this:
http://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/yaalon-on-hospital-raid-we-control-the-area/
“We control the area in terms of intelligence,” he says, “and when it’s necessary, operationally as well.”
The Palestinians do not control Area A any more than American Indian tribes control their own reservations or than black South Africans controlled their own Bantustans. Palestinians aren't even allowed to arrest non-Palestinians, or to use force to defend Palestinians, anywhere in the West Bank.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)leader? Or did Israel pick Abbas for them? Can they own land? You have a very delusional definition of apartheid and I thank you profusely for proving that.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)is an occupation.
1) Palestinians do not get to choose the people who make the big decisions that govern Palestinian life. Those people are chosen by Israelis. Palestinians do not even have an independent tax base, but depend on Israeli collections of tax revenues.
2) Palestinians cannot travel between their own fucking cities in many cases, and are forbidden from driving on Israel's apartheid roads that criss-cross and chop up the Palestinian areas.
3) Palestinians do not have property rights if the IDF and/or Jewish settlers also want the land.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)I point out that you have zero idea what the definition of apartheid is and you immediately call me a conservative. How pathetically predictable. I also never said there wasn't an occupation so you stop LYING about that. I said it wasn't apartheid and it isn't. Now go try and deflect some more - it wont make you look any better for lying about me but it will probably soothe your ego.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)charge of the west bank are not qualified to judge what is and what isn't an accurate, let alone deceptive, statement.
I guess you can explain to the South Africans whey they aren't qualified to discuss apartheid and should defer to outspoken hasbarists such as yourself on the subject.
In 2009, a comprehensive 18-month independent academic study was completed for the Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa for the South African Department of Foreign Affairs on the legal status of Israel's occupation of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza Strip.[62] The specific questions examined in the study were whether Israeli policies are consistent with colonialism and apartheid, as these practices and regimes are spelled out in relevant international legal instruments. The second question, regarding apartheid, was the major focus of the study. Authors and analysts contributing to the study included jurists, academics and international lawyers from Israel, the occupied Palestinian territories, South Africa, England, Ireland and the United States. The team considered whether human rights law can be applied to cases of belligerent occupation, the legal context in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories and related international law and comparative practices. The question of apartheid was examined through a dual approach: reference to international law and comparison to policies and practices by the apartheid regime in South Africa. Initially released as a report, the report was later edited and published in 2012 (by Pluto Press) as Beyond Occupation: Apartheid, Colonialism and International Law in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
Regarding international law, the team reported that Israel's practices in the OPT correlate almost entirely with the definition of apartheid as established in Article 2 of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. (The exception was the Convention's reference to genocidal policies, which were not found to be part of Israeli practices, although the team noted that genocide was not the policy in apartheid South Africa either.) Comparison to South African laws and practices by the apartheid regime also found strong correlations with Israeli practices, including violations of international standards for due process (such as illegal detention); discriminatory privileges based on ascribed ethnicity (legally, as Jewish or non-Jewish); draconian enforced ethnic segregation in all parts of life, including by confining groups to ethnic "reserves and ghettoes"; comprehensive restrictions on individual freedoms, such as movement and expression; a dual legal system based on ethno-national identity (Jewish or Palestinian); denationalization (denial of citizenship); and a special system of laws designed selectively to punish any Palestinian resistance to the system.
Thematically, the team concluded that Israel's practices could be grouped into three "pillars" of apartheid comparable to practices in South Africa:
The first pillar "derives from Israeli laws and policies that establish Jewish identity for purposes of law and afford a preferential legal status and material benefits to Jews over non-Jews".
The second pillar is reflected in "Israel's 'grand' policy to fragment the OPT [and] ensure that Palestinians remain confined to the reserves designated for them while Israeli Jews are prohibited from entering those reserves but enjoy freedom of movement throughout the rest of the Palestinian territory. This policy is evidenced by Israel's extensive appropriation of Palestinian land, which continues to shrink the territorial space available to Palestinians; the hermetic closure and isolation of the Gaza Strip from the rest of the OPT; the deliberate severing of East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank; and the appropriation and construction policies serving to carve up the West Bank into an intricate and well-serviced network of connected settlements for Jewish-Israelis and an archipelago of besieged and non-contiguous enclaves for Palestinians".
The third pillar is "Israel's invocation of 'security' to validate sweeping restrictions on Palestinian freedom of opinion, expression, assembly, association and movement [to] mask a true underlying intent to suppress dissent to its system of domination and thereby maintain control over Palestinians as a group."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy#Analysis_by_international_legal_team
But, to be fair, can we agree upon calling what Israel is doing in the West Bank "Jim Crow?"
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)words that don't mean what I wish them to mean but use them for what they actually mean, then yes. You want to use the word apartheid because it causes a visceral reaction and that's the only reason you want to use it. Not because it's what you're describing. That would be entirely your problem. And frankly, stuff your hasbarist bullshit - nobody pays me to defend Israel so you can stop LYING about that also. All you fucking do is lie about posters who disagree with you. It's repulsive.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Also, hasbarist isn't a term that implies payment. It's rather a description of behavior and a belief system.
For instance, claiming that the Palestinians control the West Bank is an example of hasbarist horseshit.
shira
(30,109 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)John Dugard:
Thank you very much for your invitation to speak today. I am very honored. It’s a great occasion for The Jerusalem Fund, and I’m really pleased to be part of this memorial lecture. As Samar told you, I’ve just recently been to Gaza, but I can’t speak freely about my visit to Gaza. I was part of a mission established by the League of Arab States to investigate violations of human rights and humanitarian law in Gaza. We visited at the end of February for a week, and we’re still writing the report. So at this stage, I cannot really comment on our findings. You will appreciate that any attempt to attach responsibility to Israel is a sensitive issue and is bound to result in considerable criticism. So, we want to do a very careful job in preparing our report.
But what I can say is that I have been visiting Gaza twice a year since 2001, and I have on previous occasions witnessed evidence of horrendous bombings and killings and house destructions. But the most recent attack surpassed all the others. There were more killings—1,434 deaths of which 288 were children, 121 women—and it’s estimated that of the 1,400 over 900 were civilians. Of course, the Israeli government disputes this, but I think this is largely because the Israeli government tends to view anyone over the age of 16 as a potential terrorist. And certainly, the Israelis view policemen as militants whereas in fact policemen are, under international law, classified as civilians. And one must remember that the opening salvo, which was very much like an attack on Pearl Harbor, was an attack directed at a police parade in which fifteen new recruits were killed. It’s not only the number of deaths but also the manner of killing. We spoke to a number of eyewitnesses who spoke about the way in which their parents, children had been shot in cold blood between their eyes by a member of the IDF [Israeli Defense Forces] at fairly short range. I find it very difficult to believe some of these stories, but they have now been confirmed by members of the IDF. You may have read that at a military academy in Israel there was an open discussion about the conduct of the war, and many members of the IDF spoke with some horror about the way in which their fellow soldiers had behaved.
Also, some of the weaponry used was bound to cause unnecessary suffering. There was the use of white soft phosphorous which Israel has conceded it used and the use of flechettes. Both these weapons when used in densely populated areas do cause tremendous suffering. And then, there was the destruction of property that we witnessed. What was extraordinary was the number of minarets of the mosques that had been shot out. It was quite clear that members of the IDF were simply having fun targeting minarets because they serve no security purpose. And then, there was the case of the Al-Wafa Hospital which in bold letters has “HOSPITAL” on the front, and there was a shell that had gone right through the letter “H.” So, it was quite clear that they were deliberately targeting a hospital. And then, there was the Islamic University which was partially destroyed. Allegedly, its laboratories were being used to manufacture armed weapons. And then, there was the American School, which was hardly a Hamas target, which had been flattened. And then, of course, factories and businesses had been destroyed. Again, one couldn’t easily describe them as Hamas targets. So, the destruction of property and the killings were really very distressing. But as I say, we are dealing with issues of accountability and responsibility, and we would have to wait until our report is completed.
Let me just say on the subject that I’ve been really disappointed about the international response to the conflict in Gaza. The secretary general of the United Nations has initiated a limited inquiry into the bombing of U.N. property, but it goes no further. The secretary general of the United Nations did visit Gaza. I think he was the first one ever to have visited Gaza, but he carefully refrained from speaking to any of the victims or visiting any of the destroyed property other than U. N. premises. This created quite an impression, poor impression, in Gaza itself. There has been a request from 16 distinguished international lawyers and peace activists to create a proper independent inquiry commission. An approach has been made to the Security Council, but that doesn’t seem to be getting anywhere. The Human Rights Council has mandated the establishment of a commission of inquiry, but the Human Rights Council is having difficulty persuading people to join that commission. So, it seems that the commission established by the League of Arab States may well be the only independent commission of inquiry to examine this situation.
Today, I’m not going to talk about Gaza. I’m going to talk about occupation and apartheid. The mere comparison with apartheid is a very sensitive issue. I appreciate that. I should just mention this connection, it’s a subject that is likely to be raised in the Durban Review Conference in Geneva later this month or I think it’s the middle of April. There’s also a study being made of the comparisons by the South African Human Sciences Research Council, and that study group will publish its report on the subject, a fairly lengthy report running to about 300 pages, in London in May and in South Africa in June. So, this is a very topical issue even though it is regarded as offensive in certain quarters.
I will be speaking about occupation and apartheid. Let me begin with the subject of occupation. The Palestinian territory is clearly occupied territory. There’s no question about this as far as the international community is concerned in respect to the West Bank. Israel has argued that since 2005 when it withdrew its settlers and its military force from Gaza itself that it has seized to be an occupied territory, but the International Committee of the Red Cross and I think the whole of the international community, with the possible exception of the United States, rejects this argument. They take the view that Gaza is effectively occupied by Israel because Israel has control of its land borders, its sea space, its air space and it conducts military incursions fairly regularly into the territory. I think the United States’ position, announced by [former U.S. Secretary of State] Condoleezza Rice, was that it was a quite hostile entity. One doesn’t quite know what that means. But one hopes that the [U.S. President Barack] Obama administration will make it clear that it regards Gaza and the West Bank as occupied territory.
Military occupation is a regime that is tolerated by international law. It’s not approved. In terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention which regulates the conduct of the occupying power, the occupying power is obliged to care for the welfare of the occupied people and, in particular, to ensure that medical facilities and educational facilities are respected and fostered. But, of course, we all know that Israel just ignores this obligation because in Palestine the international donor community is largely responsible for the welfare of the Palestinian people. It’s quite clear that international law does not contemplate a lengthy period of occupation, a prolonged occupation in this case running to over 40 years. The Israeli government tends to take the view that the longer the occupation, the less the obligations. But I think the general accepted view is that the exact opposite applies.
So, Israel is in occupation. But over the past 40 years, we’ve seen the addition of two other elements. That is colonialism and apartheid. And this tends to aggravate the status of the Palestinian territory. I don’t think there’s any question about colonialism in the Palestinian territory, particularly in the West Bank since settlers withdrew from Gaza in 2005. We have nearly half a million Jewish settlers in the West Bank. This number is growing despite promises by successive Israeli governments that they will stop settlements. It’s interesting that constructions are taking place in some 88 of the 149 settlements in the West Bank. The growth rate in the settlements is 4.5 [percent] compared with 1.5 [percent] in Israel itself. It’s important not only to look at settlements but also at territory in the West Bank that is set aside for military purposes and as nature reserves. And someone can say that roughly 38 percent of the West Bank is off limits to Palestinians. So, there is a form of colonialism in the West Bank, and colonialism is not tolerated by international law. It’s clearly unlawful. Not only do settlements constitute a form of colonialism, but they also violate the Geneva Convention. So, that’s a clear illegality on the part of Israel.
The other element that has been introduced is that of apartheid. And it’s important to stress that apartheid is not only illegal in South Africa itself but it’s also been declared to be unlawful in international law. In 1973, there was a convention on apartheid adopted by the United Nations. Briefly, this convention provides that the infliction on members of a racial group of serious bodily or mental harm, inhumane or degrading treatment, the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of a racial group and so on by denying to such a group basic human rights and freedoms when such acts are 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. So, [there] is a definition, a general definition of apartheid. This definition has now been transferred to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and the crime of apartheid is seen as a species of crime against humanity. So, it’s quite clear that apartheid is unlawful under international law. Israel, of course, argues that its policies do not constitute apartheid. It claims that there’s no racial discrimination in its practices or policies. It argues that the purpose of its occupation is simply to maintain law and order pending a peace settlement. It’s not to maintain domination of one group over another.
I think it’s important to stress that there are major differences between apartheid as it was applied in South Africa and the policies and practices in the occupied territories. The systems are clearly not identical. But there are many similar features. I would just like to speak about what I regard as the three dominant features of apartheid in South Africa and examine the extent to which they apply in the Palestinian territory. First of all, there was what was known as “grand apartheid”; that was territorial separation. Then, there was what was incorrectly described as “petty apartheid,” which was racial discrimination. And then thirdly, there were the security laws.
Well, how does Israel feature in respect of “grand apartheid”? Are there Bantustans in the West Bank? And I think the answer to this question is yes. We do see territorial fragmentation of the kind that the South African government promoted in terms of its Bantustan policy. We see, first of all, a very clear separation being made between the West Bank and Gaza. But within the West Bank itself, we see a separation to essentially three or more territories and some additional enclaves with a center, north and south. And it’s quite clear that the Israeli government would like to see the Palestinian Authority as a kind of Bantustan puppet regime. So, there are similarities of that kind.
Then one comes to so-called “petty apartheid”—discrimination. There’s abundant evidence of such discrimination. There are, of course, separate roads for settlers and for Palestinians. And let me hasten to add that in South Africa we never had separate roads for black and white. There’s the discrimination in the Seam Zone. That is the area between the Green Line and the Wall. Israeli nationals are free to enter the Seam Zone, but Palestinians require permits and they are seldom granted permits.
Then, there’s the whole question of building rights. As you know, under Israeli law, houses may not be built by Palestinians in East Jerusalem or in Area C of the West Bank—and that constitutes most of the West Bank—without permits. And permits are not granted in most cases, an overwhelming majority of cases, with the result that there’s tremendous demolition of houses for so-called administrative reasons. And we see that happening at present in Jerusalem. So, these are housing demolition practice policy, which is also similar to that which occurred in South Africa.
Fourthly, there is freedom of movement. In South Africa, we had a past law system which required all blacks to carry documents and to justify their existence wherever they happen to be. And they were prevented from entering urban areas without special permission. So, serious restrictions were placed on freedom of movement. But I think it’s true to say that even more serious restrictions are imposed upon Palestinians. We have over 600 checkpoints within the West Bank itself. It’s rather strange that Israel argues that it has built a so-called security barrier to keep suicide bombers out of Israel but then, in addition, it erects these checkpoints. And I tend to take the view that the sole purpose of the checkpoints is to discriminate and to humiliate.
Fifthly, there’s the subject of family reunification. Again, this is a blatantly discriminatory practice. As you know, Palestinians living in Israel are not allowed to bring their spouses to Israel if they are from the Occupied Palestinian Territory and members of the Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory are not allowed to bring in foreign spouses either. So, we do have a discriminatory system.
The third feature of apartheid was its security apparatus. In order to maintain white control, the South African authorities introduced Draconian security laws, which resulted in the detention and prosecution of a large number of political activists. But, of course, the same thing happens in Israel. We now have some 11,000 Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails. And there are very serious allegations of torture of detainees and prisoners.
So what is the major difference? The major difference I see between South Africa’s apartheid system and what prevails in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is that the South African apartheid regime was more honest. We had a rigid legal system which prescribed in great detail how discrimination was to occur and how it was to be implemented. There was an obsession with detail and legality in much the same way that Nazi Germany discriminated. It was open but at the same time it was honest. In the case of Israel, it is concealed. There’s a lovely story told by Shulamit Aloni, a former minister of education in Israel, of an occasion in which she confronted a member of the IDF who was arresting a Palestinian for driving on a settler road and for confiscating [his identification] card. She said to him, “But how is he to know that this is a road for the exclusive use of settlers? There is no notice to that effect.” And he said, “Of course Palestinians know or they should know.” He said, “What do you want us to do? Do you want us to put up signs saying Palestinians only, settlers only and then everyone will say that we are an apartheid state like South Africa?” And so, there is this concealment of discrimination. So, there are differences.
I suppose you’re going to ask me the question, which regime was worse? I find it difficult to answer this question as a white South African because, although I lived in South Africa throughout the apartheid period, I was obviously not subject to the discriminatory laws that were leveled and aimed at blacks. But what is interesting is that every black South African that I’ve spoken to who has visited the Palestinian territory has been horrified and has said without hesitation that the system that applies in Palestine is worse. And there are a number of reasons for this.
I think, first of all, one can say there are features of the Israeli regime in the occupied territory that were unknown to South Africans. We never had a wall separating black and white. I know it’s called the apartheid Wall, but that’s really a misnomer because there was no wall of that kind in South Africa. And as I’ve said, there were no separate roads. These are novel features of Israel’s apartheid regime.
Secondly, the enforcement of the regime is much stricter. We have repeated military incursions into the West Bank, let alone Gaza. Gaza tends to attract most of the attention, but there are regular raids carried out by the IDF into the West Bank and arrests are made and Palestinians are shot and killed. And what is interesting is that in South Africa, political activists were tried by the regular criminal courts of the land in open proceedings. Whereas in Israel, Palestinians are tried by military courts which have emergency rules and regulations inherited from the British, but they are not proper courts.
I think perhaps the most important distinguishing feature is that there are no positive features about Israel’s apartheid. The South African apartheid regime did attempt to pacify the black majority by providing it with material benefits. And so schools were built; universities were built; hospitals and clinics were built by the apartheid regime. Special factories were built in the black areas in order to encourage workers to work in the African areas. So, there was a very positive side, although it was a materialistic side, to the apartheid order. Whereas in the case of Israel’s apartheid, Israel makes virtually no contribution to the welfare of the Palestinian people. It leaves it all to the donor community. Of course, this also raises the question, which is debated vigorously in Palestine, about whether it is wise for the donor community to bail Israel out. Whether it would not be wiser just to withdraw and let the whole world see how nasty the Israelis are in Palestine. But that’s a separate question.
Let me just conclude by making some comments on the response of the international community because this is another area of great difference. You’ll recall that the apartheid regime was vilified internationally in the United States, in the West and throughout the world. States subjected the apartheid regime to sanctions. The United Nations was active. It also imposed limited sanctions on South Africa. The international community took the view that apartheid was an illegal regime and everything should be done to get rid of it. Whereas we know that in the case of Israel, although there are serious and manifest violations of international law, no action is taken by western states or by the international community. We all know the reason. I might suppose in the States you would say ultimately the strength of AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee] and the evangelical lobby, but I think, in the West, generally it’s feelings of Holocaust guilt, as if the Palestinians were responsible for the Holocaust rather than the Europeans. And so, we see a double standard being applied in respect of Israel. And I think this has serious implications for the future. One can understand the comments made by [Sudanese] President [Omar] al-Bashir, “Fine for me to be subjected to an arrest warrant but what about Gaza?” And this is a plea one hears in the developing world repeatedly. You ask us to take action against Sudan, Zimbabwe, Burma for human rights violations. And I believe that action should be taken against these states. But the developing world said, “Why do you ask us to take action against these states when you yourself are engaged in the protection of Israel?”
It’s very difficult to know what’s going to happen in this situation. I’m fairly disappointed about the United Nations. The General Assembly and the Human Rights Council have very little powers. The secretary general of the United Nations is timid, shall we say. The Security Council is hampered by the veto, and the Quartet, whose very origin is suspect, is clearly under the control of the United States. In 2004, the International Court of Justice gave an advisory opinion holding the Wall as illegal. That has simply been ignored by the Security Council and the secretary general, the Quartet. There are demands for another advisory opinion on the question of the consequences of prolonged occupation coupled with apartheid and colonialism. But again, such an opinion, even if given, is likely to be ignored.
But I think there are some hopeful signs in respect of movements in civil society. We do see the question of action against Israel over Palestine being raised on university campuses, in church and in trade unions. I do tend to get the view, get the impression that public opinion is beginning to shift even though government policies remain much the same.
Well, let me end there and answer any questions that you may wish to raise.
Professor John Dugard is former U.N. special rapporteur on human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and visiting distinguished professor of law at Duke University.
http://api.ning.com/files/PYot7Zv6700VtkEk5oaIYs-n8j2b5AtvaOQOQ8G8OihcEA8DiH1HK7hEbAacLzdz*UdFrjedhr7uYHx6bRH3Zc-GOH2R**gs/DugardlectureEN.pdf
Bio:
.
Professor of International Law,
Department of Public Law, Faculty
of Law, University of Leiden
Prof. dr. John Dugard was appointed to the Chair in Public International Law in 1998. He
is a graduate of the Universities of Stellenbosch (South Africa) and Cambridge. In 1980
Cambridge University conferred the LL.D.degree on him. He has been awarded
honorary degrees in Law by the Universities of Natal, Cape Town and Port Elizabeth.
For many years he was Professor of Law at the University of Witwatersrand,
Johannesburg, during which time he was Dean
(1975-1977) and Director of the Centre for Applied Legal Studies (1978-1990), a research centre
committed to the promotion of Human Rights in South Africa. He has held visiting positions in the United States
(Princeton, Duke, Berkeley and Pennsylvania), Australia (New South Wales) and
England (Goodhart Visiting Professor in Legal Science, 1995-1996, Cambridge). From
1995-1997 he was Director of the Lauterpacht Research Center for International Law,
Cambridge.
His publications include The South West Africa/Namibia Dispute (1973), Human Rights and the South
African Legal Order (1978), Recognition and the United Nations (1987), International Law:
A South African Perspective (2000). He is a member of the Institut de Droit International.
Since 1997 he has been a member of the UN International Law Commission and since 2000
he has been the Special Rapporteur on Diplomatic Protection to the Commission.
He is a Judge ad hoc in the International
Court of Justice. Since 2001 he has served as Special Rapporteur to the UN Commission
on Human Rights on violation ofHuman Rights and International Humanitarian Law in
the Occupied Palestinian Territory. His present principal interests are international
criminal law and diplomatic protection. He will lecture, inter alia, in International
Criminal Law and Public International Law capita selecta.
http://legal.un.org/avl/pdf/ls/Dugard_bio.pdf
shira
(30,109 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)stomach going to his funeral.
South African and U.S. Leaders Dismayed over Mandela’s Remarks
March 2, 1990
NEW YORK (Mar. 1) 1990
Leaders of American and South African Jewry who have been in the forefront of the anti-apartheid movement are urging Nelson Mandela to reconsider his recent remarks equating the Palestinian-Israeli conflict with the struggle of South African blacks.
Those who only two weeks ago hailed the African National Congress leader’s release after 27 years in South African prisons were taken aback by the embraces he exchanged with Palestine Liberation Organization chief Yasir Arafat in Lusaka, Zambia, on Tuesday.
More disturbing were his remarks in a speech at Lusaka airport.
Like foes of apartheid, Mandela said that Arafat “is fighting against a unique form of colonialism, and we wish him success in his struggle,” Mandela was quoted as saying.
At a news conference Wednesday, he reiterated his support of the PLO.
Asked whether such remarks might alienate South Africa’s 100,000 Jews, who are prominent in that nation’s business elite and in the anti-apartheid Liberal Party, Mandela retorted, “If the truth alienates the powerful Jewish community in South Africa, that’s too bad.”
He added, “We expect everybody who is exploring the possibility of lasting solutions to be able to face the truth squarely. I believe that there are many similarities between our struggle and that of the PLO.
“We live under a unique form of colonialism in South Africa, as well as in Israel, and a lot flows from that.”
http://www.jta.org/1990/03/02/archive/south-african-and-u-s-leaders-dismayed-over-mandelas-remarks#ixzz2mjlwYWrU
shira
(30,109 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)The bottom line is, you have a good man in history who is no longer here, and
it is best not to use him to defend Israel when he clearly was not doing anything
of the kind.
No one should say he labeled it apartheid, that is the point of my link with HIS
description.
In addition, it should not be claimed with legitimacy that his words then defend
where Israel is today.
shira
(30,109 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)"Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall In the Occupied Palestinian Territory," the International Court of Justice repeatedly affirmed the preambular paragraph of Resolution 242 emphasizing the inadmissibility of territorial conquest as well as a 1970 General Assembly resolution emphasizing that "No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal." The World Court denoted this principle a "corollary" of the U.N. Charter and as such "customary international law" and a "customary rule" binding on all member States of the United Nations. All 15 Justices agreed.
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf
Former deputy mayor of Jerusalem Meron Benvenisti, "It goes without saying that ‘cooperation’ based on the current power relationship is no more than permanent Israeli domination in disguise, and that Palestinian self-rule is merely a euphemism for Bantustanization."
Meron Benvenisti, Intimate Enemies (New York: 1995), p. 232.
2002: B’Tselem, "Israel has created in the Occupied Territories a regime of separation based on discrimination, applying two separate systems of law in the same area and basing the rights of individuals on their nationality. This regime is the only one of its kind in the world, and is reminiscent of distasteful regimes from the past, such as the apartheid regime in South Africa." A more recent B’Tselem publication on the road system Israel has established in the West Bank again concluded that it "bears striking similarities to the racist Apartheid regime," and even "entails a greater degree of arbitrariness than was the case with the regime that existed in South Africa." Land Grab: Israel’s settlement policy in the West Bank (May 2002), p. 104
Jimmy Carter: "Peace will come to Israel and the Middle East only when the Israeli government is willing to comply with international law."
shira
(30,109 posts)The only countries and leaders peddling this crap are totalitarian & fascist, with human rights records that make Israel look saintly in comparison.
Next?
Not even Amnesty Int'l and HRW call Israel Apartheid, and they're far from being Zionist Likud stooges.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)but your usual no linked nonsense.
shira
(30,109 posts)....when applied to Israel. Only fascist led countries and leaders.
Nothing from Amnesty Int'l or HRW either.
You got nothing.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)apartheid and colonialism is addressed under international law?
Be careful, Kerry was already recorded saying apartheid and he walked it
back as best he could..before long even that won't be possible.
shira
(30,109 posts)Can't prove what's not there.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)correct in his assessment, that B'tselem is not correct, that the ICC is not correct.
Your defense rests in affirming political support for Israel. Political support was what
the US and Israel did for apartheid South Africa, eventually the realities regarding
Israel will be accepted world wide if they do not change and abide by the law.
Israel will find itself labeled and correctly so by more nations as an apartheid system.
The Apartheid Wall in Palestine
Posted: 29 March 2011
The Apartheid Wall
http://www.amnesty.org.uk/groups/leicester/apartheid-wall-palestine
shira
(30,109 posts)Name the 2 races in conflict with each other.
You can't.
Debate over. Good talk.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)obvious you're going to ignore it, just as you did earlier.
shira
(30,109 posts)n/t
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)....we should be able to agree on.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)The Amnesty International report on the wall..hope you enjoyed it.
shira
(30,109 posts)You know why? Because they're not morons claiming 2 different races are in conflict with each other.
Good talk.
ps
You claim 'semantics'. Here's the thing: If Dugard doesn't konw the 2 peoples are not different races, why should we trust anything he says? He screws up the most basic facts.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)inept response. If you believe you have a credible argument over him
I am embarrassed for you.
shira
(30,109 posts)You don't see the problem there, do you?
He's a fucking moron.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)review of international law, explaining apartheid and failing miserably at it.
shira
(30,109 posts)Claiming there's one race oppressing another in I/P is moronic.
Name the 2 races, one oppressing the other in I/P, since you find his article credible.
I'll wait.
Or punt.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Dugard's a moron, right?
I think it’s important to stress that there are major differences between apartheid as it was applied in South Africa and the policies and practices in the occupied territories. The systems are clearly not identical. But there are many similar features. I would just like to speak about what I regard as the three dominant features of apartheid in South Africa and examine the extent to which they apply in the Palestinian territory. First of all, there was what was known as “grand apartheid”; that was territorial separation. Then, there was what was incorrectly described as “petty apartheid,” which was racial discrimination. And then thirdly, there were the security laws.
Well, how does Israel feature in respect of “grand apartheid”? Are there Bantustans in the West Bank? And I think the answer to this question is yes. We do see territorial fragmentation of the kind that the South African government promoted in terms of its Bantustan policy. We see, first of all, a very clear separation being made between the West Bank and Gaza. But within the West Bank itself, we see a separation to essentially three or more territories and some additional enclaves with a center, north and south. And it’s quite clear that the Israeli government would like to see the Palestinian Authority as a kind of Bantustan puppet regime. So, there are similarities of that kind.
Then one comes to so-called “petty apartheid”—discrimination. There’s abundant evidence of such discrimination. There are, of course, separate roads for settlers and for Palestinians. And let me hasten to add that in South Africa we never had separate roads for black and white. There’s the discrimination in the Seam Zone. That is the area between the Green Line and the Wall. Israeli nationals are free to enter the Seam Zone, but Palestinians require permits and they are seldom granted permits.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)*I think it’s important to stress that there are major differences between apartheid as it was applied in South Africa and the policies and practices in the occupied territories. The systems are clearly not identical.
Israel cut into the West Bank all that is left for them are a bantustan..a dump.
You're denying these settlements exist? Israel does not have the most arable
land and water resources as a result of their plan?
Do you understand that even the US recognizes the settlements to be the problem?
Israeli policy as he described it, with separate roads and permits that are near impossible
to attain, are in fact all substantiated by human rights groups...those other people
you seem to despise.
shira
(30,109 posts)And that's what the PA signed onto in the 90's, with the blessing of the rest of the world.
Dugard's a fucking moron.
His claims don't hold up to scrutiny.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)again..just like with B'tselem. He is talking about the settlements today and he is spot on.
Have a nice day, shira.
shira
(30,109 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)The entire world at Oslo in the mid 90's signed onto an agreement giving the PA control of areas A and B, with Israel maintaining control of Area C. The Palestinians signed onto this.
No one at that time made the ridiculous claim of Bantustans.
===================
Dugard is also a racist who believes terror attacks are a natural reaction to occupation. He sees Palestinians as animals incapable of controlling themselves.
Not to mention Dugard's support of Hamas, human shielding, child militants....
So he's not just a fucking moron, but a racist asshole as well.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Point out where you got this idea from: YOU:He sees Palestinians as animals incapable of controlling themselves.
Oh and where is the evidence he supports Hamas and human shields, child militants.
shira
(30,109 posts)The Oslo peace process, approved by the EU, Russia, USA, and of course the PA signed onto that.
Are you accusing the PA of signing on to bantustans, with worldwide approval?
Give it up already.
Either that - or show me articles from that time period making the case for bantustans in the W.Bank in areas A and B.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)You have yet to tell me.
shira
(30,109 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)the Israeli settlements began.
King_David
(14,851 posts)
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)As usual, this was a "regrettable but absolutely necessary" murder, and nobody will ever be charged.
Response to Little Tich (Reply #20)
6chars This message was self-deleted by its author.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)"He remained on the ground bleeding and they hit my brother on his head and took him away.""
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/12/us-israel-palestinians-violence-idUSKCN0T10JX20151112#haCQlVBRtTDfO4d5.97
Response to Little Tich (Reply #22)
6chars This message was self-deleted by its author.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)figure out how...
Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/12/palestinian-shot-dead-in-israeli-undercover-raid-on-west-bank-hospital
