WASHINGTON (AP) — Top American and Israeli officials held virtual talks Monday as the U.S. pushed alternatives to the ground assault against Hamas under consideration by Israelis in the southern Gaza city of Rafah, a move the U.S. opposes on humanitarian grounds and that has frayed relations between the two allies.
President Joe Biden and his administration have publicly and privately urged Israel for months to refrain from a large-scale incursion into Rafah without a credible plan to relocate and safeguard noncombatants. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has insisted that Israel I forces, which are trying to eradicate Hamas after the Oct. 7 attack on Israel, must be able to enter the city to root out the group’s remaining battalions.
The more than two-and-a-half-hour meeting by secure video conference was described by both sides as constructive and productive, as Washington encourages the Israelis to avoid an all-out assault on the city, where an estimated four battalions of Hamas fighters are dispersed among more than 1.3 million civilians. The White House has instead pushed Israel to take more targeted actions to kill or capture Hamas leaders while limiting civilian impacts.
The potential operation in the city has exposed one of the deepest rifts between Israel and its closest ally, funder and arms supplier. The U.S. has already openly said Israel must do more to allow food and other goods through its blockade of Gaza to avert famine.
Israel was founded on Settler Colonialism and ethnic cleansing, both fundamental to Zionism. Stop being antisemitic and conflating all Jewish people with Israel.
Three main international treaties prohibit and/or explicitly criminalize apartheid: the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (Apartheid Convention) and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute).
The Concept of Transfer 1882-1948 culminating to Plan Dalet in 1948, more details here.
You can learn more in the Apartheid Reports
Amnesty International Report
Human Rights Watch Report
B’TSelem Report with quick Explainer
At it again with irrelevant links. Wow three treaties prohibit apartheid? Great, it should be prohibited. Minority rule over the majority is disgusting. Israel doesn’t have apartheid by the literal definition of the word. You’re twisting the word to apply it to Israel, and only to Israel, because you are an anti semite.
Terrorists don’t get to have a country. Stop whitewashing the history.
Ah yes, @[email protected], any link that crushes every one of your points is irrelevant.
Every one of them begins with flagrant twisting of facts to suit the conclusion they want to reach.
They gloss over the distinguishing feature of apartheid, which is minority control of the majority. Period. If it doesn’t have that, it’s not apartheid. I realize that there are people who nevertheless call Israel apartheid. That’s called anti semitism.
Except it’s not a distinguishing feature. All these fine people have tried to show you evidence from experts on apartheid.
The reason you don’t want to fix this mistake that you keep parrotting to everyone is that you’d have to come to terms with being a genocide supporter.
This whole “minority rule” that you have gotten so pedantic about in some kind of tunnel vision is an excuse. A really sad excuse.
South Africa’s apartheid was one example of minority rule over a majority. This is unique to South Africa and IS NOT some kind of defining feature of it. Apartheid is a racial segregation system that can come about in many ways. Israel has checked almost every box on the list: actual racial segragation, robbing Palestinians of their human rights even of they are citizens of Israel, literally building TWO separation walls, etc, etc.
Even South Africa itself clearly called Israel an apartheid state, but as a response we both recall how you claimed to know more about apartheid than South Africa. So even if all legal experts in the world disagreed with you, you would still not change your opinion.
Don’t you see the pattern of your thinking? I’m seriously asking.
Period.
See? We can both do this “period” shit. It doesn’t make us right.
Removed by mod
That statement is profoundly ignorant of history.