The South African elephant in the room ...

[Shadow Wolf]

Going by the ICC definition, isn't trying to defend apartheid anything roughly like trying to defend slavery? As in, there is an inherent problem with it?
This thread reminds me a lot of slavery being justified when it's Biblical slavery, because somehow that makes it better and less inhumane and less of a problem.

 

[epronovost]

So it is removal but more people live there. Got it. Now were you talking about the removal of 4 families who refuse to pay rent?

They got their property stolen by colonist who claim the house that were built for them in 1948 by the UN and administered by the Jordanian government until 1967 is there's and owe them rent to continue living there.

I'm also talking about the practice of the Israeli government to bulldoze the houses of suicide bombers and suspected terrorists this expulsing their family from the area. Punishing the family for a person's crime is very much a form of State sponsored terrorism.

A blockade? Oh you mean the Israeli/Egyptian border through which Israel sends humanitarian aid (and this also explains all the rockets into Egypt!) and which has 5 star hotels, resorts and mansions for the elite who embezzle money and destroyed the infrastructure at the expense of their own people. I'm glad you are clarifying.

Yeah the one where a fleet of Spanish and Turkish international aid workers were attacked by the IDF killing ten of them and leading to Netanyahu having an arrest warrant for him from Spain for his role in this fiasco. Note that humanitarian aid can sometime pass through it doesn't make it less a blockade. In fact, a blockade is supposed to let pass through humanitarian aid else it would be a war crime, but it's still an act of war under international law.

Maybe you mean the 2005 forcible removal of all Jews from Gaza or the Jews' being barred from certain areas even today. That sounds like ethnic cleansing, right?

Exactly and since these policies were conducted by Israel for the purpose of transforming Gaza into a Ghetto for the Palestinian population. I don't understand your confusion. If you want a small miserable ghetto for an ethnic group under your thumb, you might need to remove your own people first to make it a reality.

 

[rosends]

They got their property stolen by colonist who claim the house that were built for them in 1948 by the UN and administered by the Jordanian government until 1967 is there's and owe them rent to continue living there.

Property was bought and registered in 1875. It was stolen and given away and yet the courts sided with those who got the stolen properties as long as they pay rent. If someone doesn't pay rent, he gets evicted.

I'm also talking about the practice of the Israeli government to bulldoze the houses of suicide bombers and suspected terrorists this expulsing their family from the area. Punishing the family for a person's crime is very much a form of State sponsored terrorism.

Which is, I guess, why the Israeli Supreme Court ha started to curtail its use. https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...996e5e-defb-11ea-b4f1-25b762cdbbf4_story.html

Yeah the one where a fleet of Spanish and Turkish international aid workers were attacked by the IDF killing ten of them and leading to Netanyahu having an arrest warrant for him from Spain for his role in this fiasco. Note that humanitarian aid can sometime pass through it doesn't make it less a blockade. In fact, a blockade is supposed to let pass through humanitarian aid else it would be a war crime, but it's still an act of war under international law.

Wait, are you now referring to the mavi Marmara incident? Yeah, the Palmer report, the payments, the phone call. You should read up on those things, start on page 102 if that helps.

Exactly and since these policies were conducted by Israel for the purpose of transforming Gaza into a Ghetto for the Palestinian population. I don't understand your confusion. If you want a small miserable ghetto for an ethnic group under your thumb, you might need to remove your own people first to make it a reality.

So are you discounting the crime of displacing the Jewish residents to make the area judenrein? Did that bother you? Then you look at what was left (ignoring what was destroyed by the Arabs).

A small miserable ghetto? You should visit it. It is a separate area ruled by its own government and there is a border between it and the country next to it. How is this a ghetto?

 

[Lyndon]

Israel’s doctrine: Humane bombing and benevolent occupation

 

[epronovost]

Which is, I guess, why the Israeli Supreme Court ha started to curtail its use. https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...996e5e-defb-11ea-b4f1-25b762cdbbf4_story.html

That doesn't erase the crime at all nor does it completely bans the practice. It's, as mentioned in the title of the article, a "rare ruling against practice of demolishing homes". I would also like to note that Netanyahu and the ruling coalition promised to make appeal of that specific decision and were very unhappy.

Wait, are you now referring to the mavi Marmara incident? Yeah, the Palmer report, the payments, the phone call. You should read up on those things, start on page 102 if that helps.

Did you read the part where the UN reports that states that 6 of the ten deaths are consistent with a summary execution and that's not counting the accusation of torture and mistreatment, but then again Israel has been accused to use torture, arbitrary detentions and the like on Palestinians for years. I think you are trying to polish a turd there.

A small miserable ghetto? You should visit it. It is a separate area ruled by its own government and there is a border between it and the country next to it. How is this a ghetto?

It's a besieged overpopulated poor city under the nominal control of its government but under the thumb of Israel which decides who gets in and out whose population is often use as a source of cheap labor. It's level of development is comparable to Iraq and El Salvador which is, by all account pretty much miserable. Also, I can't visit it since Gaza is under lockdown with no tourist allowed in for about 15 years making that fancy 5 and 4 star hotels of the region completely useless and empty as we speak. They are mostly used as housing and government building by the Hamas right now. A hellhole needs a corrupt and inept government after all and Hamas fits the bill perfectly.

 

[rosends]

That doesn't erase the crime at all nor does it completely bans the practice. It's, as mentioned in the title of the article, a "rare ruling against practice of demolishing homes". I would also like to note that Netanyahu and the ruling coalition promised to make appeal of that specific decision and were very unhappy.

You made a critique and I'm showing that the Israeli courts are dealing with this as well. That's how things work in a democracy. No one thrown off a building or dragged behind a car because of a divergent opinion. No fiat.

Did you read the part where the UN reports that states that 6 of the ten deaths are consistent with a summary execution and that's not counting the accusation of torture and mistreatment, but then again Israel has been accused to use torture, arbitrary detentions and the like on Palestinians for years. I think you are trying to polish a turd there.

I read where it stated that the blockade was legal and not an act of war, contrary to your claim. I think you are shifting the goal posts here.

It's a besieged overpopulated poor city under the nominal control of its government but under the thumb of Israel which decides who gets in and out whose population is often use as a source of cheap labor. It's level of development is comparable to Iraq and El Salvador which is, by all account pretty much miserable. Also, I can't visit it since Gaza is under lockdown with no tourist allowed in for about 15 years making that fancy 5 and 4 star hotels of the region completely useless and empty as we speak. They are mostly used as housing and government building by the Hamas right now. A hellhole needs a corrupt and inept government after all and Hamas fits the bill perfectly.

That hellhole elected its corrupt and inept government. It wasn't a hellhole when every Israeli was forcibly removed, but then the people to whom it was given destroyed the infrastructure that was left and fired rockets that same day. Arabs say they want their own state and a way to keep Israel out. When given land, suddenly it is a ghetto and they want the right to leave it to go wherever they want. Can't have it both ways. Its development is hampered by a government that has squandered literally tens of millions of dollars on tunnels and rockets instead of schools and anything for its own people.

 

[Lyndon]

Maybe the Israelis need to be locked in and not allowed to come and go so they can see how it feels!!

 

[epronovost]

You made a critique and I'm showing that the Israeli courts are dealing with this as well. That's how things work in a democracy. No one thrown off a building or dragged behind a car because of a divergent opinion. No fiat.

There is a problem with a democracy having such policy in the first place, with its ruling party supporting it and the court, most often, upholding it. Such a policy is, in the first place, criminal in regard to international law. Note that in that case. The article didn't present the abandonment of such a practice just a rare and surprising case where it wasn't upheld. It also doesn't address the cases of torture, summary executions and arbitrary arrests either which makes your rebuttal lose a bit of punch in my opinion.

I read where it stated that the blockade was legal and not an act of war, contrary to your claim. I think you are shifting the goal posts here.

A blockade is a legal wartime action, but it's by its very nature always an act of war. An embargo or economical sanctions would the peaceful equivalent. A "pacific blockade" despite what it's name might imply is still an act of war it's just that it targets a State that cannot respond with force and in the hope of coercing it for the benefit of the blockading party. Israel blockade of Gaza is an attempt at such a blockade though it partially failed. While Hamas cannot force the blockade since it has no warships nor air force. It did launched attacks on land as a reprisal against it.

It wasn't a hellhole when every Israeli was forcibly removed

Israel wasn't forcibly removed. It willingly abandoned the zone.

 

[PureX]

um...
"Surprisingly, despite the Palestinian propaganda pushed by PA leaders and their supporters that Israel is chasing Arabs out of the city, the Palestinian Authority’s own office of statistics confirms the Israeli numbers.

The Palestine Central Bureau of Statics in Ramallah (PCBS) reported that in 2010 there were 385,669 Arabs in Jerusalem, and the latest PCBS report said the estimated population in Jerusalem for December, 2020 is 466,750 – amounting to a whopping 21% overall increase in the past decade."

The PA agrees. Population is INCREASING. So you invent "domestic servants" because the earlier claim fails. Got it.

All it says is that it increased in 20 years. That doesn't mean that it's not decreasing now, or in the last 5 or ten years. It also says nothing about what happening in the rest of the country. But clearly, you're not going to consider any possibility that the report is biased, skewed, or otherwise inaccurate. Or that it's mostly meaningless, which it is.

 

[rosends]

Israel wasn't forcibly removed. It willingly abandoned the zone.

Israelis were forcibly removed. The population was picked up and forced to relocate. Did you protest this crime in 2005?

 

[epronovost]

Israelis were forcibly removed. The population was picked up and forced to relocate. Did you protest this crime in 2005?

The colonist who were Israeli citizens were forced to evacuate by the Israeli government following a free decision of the Israeli government to fulfil it's anti-terror strategy. The citizens in question were compensated for their loss. I don't think this qualify as a crime, not was it a unilateral decision from the Palestinian authorities that lead to that. Furthermore, even if you were correct, that would not make the treatment of Palestinians any less appalling. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[rosends]

The colonist who were Israeli citizens were forced to evacuate by the Israeli government following a free decision of the Israeli government to fulfil it's anti-terror strategy. The citizens in question were compensated for their loss. I don't think this qualify as a crime, not was it a unilateral decision from the Palestinian authorities that lead to that. Furthermore, even if you were correct, that would not make the treatment of Palestinians any less appalling. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Wait, the people who had lived there were lifted up, kicking and screaming, and forced to relocate and that doesn't constitute a war crime, but evicting families who don't pay their rent does? Moving out of Gaza was not about a "anti-terror strategy" but about giving up land in the hopes of peace (though that didn't pan out as rockets were fired from Gaza later that same day).

 

[Lyndon]

And the Gazan Jews had stolen the land from the Palestinians.

 

[epronovost]

Wait, the people who had lived there were lifted up, kicking and screaming, and forced to relocate and that doesn't constitute a war crime

No, it doesn't. It's not an action conducted by a foreign military. It's a legal action conducted by their own government. It's not criminal nor a war crime by any definition of the term.

but evicting families who don't pay their rent does?

Considering that Israel doesn't have legal sovereignty over that territory and that the it's court allows a clear double standard that actively discriminate against Palestinian (Jews can claim ownership of homes if they can demonstrate they owned the land beneath them prior to 1948, but Palestinian cannot else 1.4 million of them would not live in refugee camps), yes, it's very much a crime. You are making a lot of Manichean shortcuts to polish a lot of turds for some reasons. Israel can do wrong and it often does, especially in the last 20 years or so.

How Evictions in Jerusalem Led to Israeli-Palestinian Violence

Moving out of Gaza was not about a "anti-terror strategy" but about giving up land in the hopes of peace (though that didn't pan out as rockets were fired from Gaza later that same day).

That's an "anti terror strategy" moving out of a zone and transform it into an open air prison in the hope to reduce the number of attacks against your population is very much an "anti terror strategy". You might prefer other measures, but it remains one. It could have worked had they not blockaded the area and continued their policy of shady land grab in the West Bank.

 

[rosends]

No, it doesn't. It's not an action conducted by a foreign military. It's a legal action conducted by their own government. It's not criminal nor a war crime by any definition of the term.

These are the definitions I'm using (again, from the UN)
"A United Nations Commission of Experts mandated to look into violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia defined ethnic cleansing in its interim report S/25274 as "… rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area." In its final report S/1994/674, the same Commission described ethnic cleansing as “… a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas.”"

But that doesn't apply to the forcible removal of the Israeli population in Gaza? I don't see where it says anything about a foreign military. Could you send a link to the definition you are using which requires "foreign military"? TIA.

Considering that Israel doesn't have legal sovereignty over that territory and that the it's court allows a clear double standard that actively discriminate against Palestinian (Jews can claim ownership of homes if they can demonstrate they owned the land beneath them prior to 1948, but Palestinian cannot else 1.4 million of them would not live in refugee camps), yes, it's very much a crime. You are making a lot of Manichean shortcuts to polish a lot of turds for some reasons. Israel can do wrong and it often does, especially in the last 20 years or so.

Israel doesn't have sovereignty over Jerusalem? The same courts that GAVE the Arabs the right to stay even after Israelis produced deeds to the land (and no one complained about sovereignty then) are going to decide if they can be evicted for lack of rent payment and you see a problem with that. To prove a double standard you ignore the legal issues and say "yeah but what about this unrelated situation?" You are bending over backwards to selectively apply rules and laws to create a criticism of Israel. It is very telling.

That's an "anti terror strategy" moving out of a zone and transform it into an open air prison in the hope to reduce the number of attacks against your population is very much an "anti terror strategy". You might prefer other measures, but it remains one. It could have worked had they not blockaded the area and continued their policy of shady land grab in the West Bank.

Israel left an infrastructure so that a people could be self-governing. The hope was that if Israel gave people the chance to govern and run their own lives, they would not have anything to resist. The same strategy was used when Israel gave the Sinai to Egypt. Egypt made something of it. This in Gaza didn't. They elected a corrupt government and destroyed the infrastructure. I notice no rockets fired at Egypt.

 

[epronovost]

These are the definitions I'm using (again, from the UN)
"A United Nations Commission of Experts mandated to look into violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia defined ethnic cleansing in its interim report S/25274 as "… rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area." In its final report S/1994/674, the same Commission described ethnic cleansing as “… a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas.”"

But that doesn't apply to the forcible removal of the Israeli population in Gaza? I don't see where it says anything about a foreign military. Could you send a link to the definition you are using which requires "foreign military"? TIA.

What you are missing is the context and the fact that it's not a group doing it to another group, but a group doing to itself following a legal decision.

Israel doesn't have sovereignty over Jerusalem?

Not according to the Palestinian authorities and international law they don't. They are criminally occupying this territory.

The same courts that GAVE the Arabs the right to stay even after Israelis produced deeds to the land

Israeli courts can't give anything outside their legal jurisdiction. Note that those buildings and houses were built and occupied by Palestinian who were expelled by Israel and denied the right to return and the ability to reclaim their property. If you rob someone, you got to compensate them in regard to the law. Israel already robbed Palestinian from their right to return, it would be icing on the cake to also rob them of that which has been built for them to live in exile and as compensation for this crime.

The same strategy was used when Israel gave the Sinai to Egypt.

Israel occupied the Sinai for about 15 years and demolished their military infrastructures and the largest town (3000 people strong) leaving only three minuscule villages as ghost town behind. Note that they didn't demolish these because the villages in question were first built by Egyptians before being occupied by settlers and then abandoned again.

 

[rosends]

What you are missing is the context and the fact that it's not a group doing it to another group, but a group doing to itself following a legal decision.

No what you are missing is that you made a claim about a necessary element and I'm asking for the definition from which you learned that that element was necessary.

Not according to the Palestinian authorities and international law they don't. They are criminally occupying this territory.

Interestingly, Israel has said that the ICC has no authority or jurisdiction there. According to Israel, and America (and international law) Israel DOES have jurisdiction and the land is not occupied. If one wants to follow a European understanding, then Israel doesn't even have a capital because it doesn't have the right to declare its own capital.

Israeli courts can't give anything outside their legal jurisdiction. Note that those buildings and houses were built and occupied by Palestinian who were expelled by Israel and denied the right to return and the ability to reclaim their property. If you rob someone, you got to compensate them in regard to the law. Israel already robbed Palestinian from their right to return, it would be icing on the cake to also rob them of that which has been built for them to live in exile and as compensation for this crime.

The houses were built on land taken by Jordan. Jordan took it by force (illegally) and annexed it (one country recognized its claim) and has since renounced all claims to that land (in 1988). Jordan also didn't cede title to the Arabs it gave the land to.

Israel occupied the Sinai for about 15 years and demolished their military infrastructures and the largest town (3000 people strong) leaving only three minuscule villages as ghost town behind. Note that they didn't demolish these because the villages in question were first built by Egyptians before being occupied by settlers and then abandoned again.

Israel left the Sinai after controlling it since Israel was attacked in 1967. When it gave the land back (also for the promise of peace) it left 4 settlements, hotels and an airport. All have flourished. A relative peace has ensued. Israel left a substantial infrastructure in Gaza. It was destroyed by mobs. Then the mobs fired rockets. Recently, they fired on humanitarian aid. If this makes sense to you, then so be it. I'm going to sleep.

 

[epronovost]

Interestingly, Israel has said that the ICC has no authority or jurisdiction there.

Of course they said so. They conquered the area so they claim they own it. International law disagrees with them, but it doesn't stop Israel from claiming lands as its own by force. When you are strong and your enemies weak you can do all sorts of stuff like that. Russia annexed Crimea in a similar, albeit smoother, process.

According to Israel, and America (and international law) Israel DOES have jurisdiction and the land is not occupied.

The US did recognized East Jerusalem as part of Israel, but this decision was condemned by the UN. It's still considered by international law as an illegal occupation.

If one wants to follow a European understanding, then Israel doesn't even have a capital because it doesn't have the right to declare its own capital.

West Jerusalem is recognized as the Capital of Jerusalem. As far as international law is concerned, Jerusalem is split into two parts and it's final status is to be determined in peace negotiations. No you can't unilaterally declare that this or that is your capital and your territory nor is right by conquest recognized in international law anymore, well before Israel annexed East Jerusalem in the 6th days war and became sovereign on this territory.

The fact remains that Israel isn't legally sovereign in regard to international law in East Jerusalem nor is seizing Palestinian property that were built as compensation for displaced people who are denied the right of return which is a war crime in regard to international law too. That's simply undeniable. Israel has robbed and continues to rob 1.5 million people and now it's coming for the real estate that was built as compensation for those people under the pretense that they own the land beneath those houses too and are entitled to money or the building because of it. Two laws for two different people.

 

[rosends]

Of course they said so. They conquered the area so they claim they own it. International law disagrees with them, but it doesn't stop Israel from claiming lands as its own by force. When you are strong and your enemies weak you can do all sorts of stuff like that. Russia annexed Crimea in a similar, albeit smoother, process.

They conquered it in a defensive war and there is no other sovereign claim to it.

West Jerusalem is recognized as the Capital of Jerusalem.

Not by a whole lot of countries.

As far as international law is concerned, Jerusalem is split into two parts and it's final status is to be determined in peace negotiations. No you can't unilaterally declare that this or that is your capital and your territory nor is right by conquest recognized in international law anymore, well before Israel annexed East Jerusalem in the 6th days war and became sovereign on this territory.

so then you accept that Jordan could not claim any sovereignty over it in 1950 when they conquered it? Then any permission they gave to Arabs to inhabit, stripping the land from deed holders was illegal as well and the property should have gone back to the Israeli deed holders when Jordan relinquished claim to the land. Thanks. And by the way, according to legal analysis, in 1967 acquiring territory in a defensive war and proclaiming sovereignty was fine.

 

[epronovost]

They conquered it in a defensive war and there is no other sovereign claim to it.

That you conquered it in a "defensive war" or not has no bearing. You can't call dibs on land and people through force and there is another sovereign claim to it: the Palestinians disagree and there is this bothering little ight to self determination of people to get by.

so then you accept that Jordan could not claim any sovereignty over it in 1950 when they conquered it? Then any permission they gave to Arabs to inhabit, stripping the land from deed holders was illegal as well and the property should have gone back to the Israeli deed holders when Jordan relinquished claim to the land.

That would be fair indeed...if Israel grants right of return to 1.5 million Palestinians living as refugees and recognizes their property rights. Since Israel doesn't then they can't claim any land that was given as compensation. Either everybody gets what they are supposed to have or everybody gets to keep what they currently have. Israel wants to give to its citizen all that they currently have and used to have, but doesn't want to afford the same to Palestinian hence why their move is criminal and also exposes them to accusations of being an apartheid State since that's exactly how apartheid States work: one ethnic/religious group who uses force and a bias legal system to gain power over another.