I just don’t see it that way. I suppose long-term it trends that way but in the short term, it’s a very well armed vassal state with a form of government and civilian populatiom worth preserving.
To me it’s like this: Israel has all the ordinance and warheads it would need to turn the Middle East into smoldering ruin from Tehran to Cairo. That’s a vassal state that is more dangerous to humanity if the reigns of American (and international) support are removed. If Israel and Iran know the US won’t back up Israel, then it stops being a vassalary war and starts being a hot, open war. I don’t know how many deaths it would take to convince me an unprotected Israel is safer for humanity than the current one but it’s a hell of a lot more than low-mid five figures. I’m thinking of the safety and rights of millions of lives. I think an open war with Iran would lead to an unprecedented humanitarian and refugee catastrophe that would result in a cascade of failed states enveloping the mideast and eastern Europe, at minimum.
At the same time, Israel has all the institutions it needs right now to vote Bibi and his right wing fanatic friends out of office and I have hope the Israeli people will do that very soon. Democracy is too rare and precious to cede. Democracy is the path to lasting peace and human rights. Say that in Hamas territory and see if you don’t get stoned to death in front of a raucous crowd. So I’m not ready to feed it to the wolves.
That’s a novel legal theory. I understand it has a lot of traction in fundraising circles and in nonprofits, and among interested associates of Tehran.
International Law is not a “novel legal theory,” neither is Israel’s institutionalized apartheid regime of systematic oppression and domination of Palestinians.
As outlined above, apartheid consists of a system of prolonged and cruel discriminatory treatment by one racial group of members of another with the intention to control the second racial group. This chapter examines the extent to which Israel has created such a system of oppression and domination over Palestinians in all areas under its jurisdiction and effective control, as well as over Palestinian refugees whose right of return to their homes remains controlled by Israel. It does so by first establishing Israel’s intent to oppress and dominate all Palestinians by establishing its hegemony across Israel and the OPT, including through means of demography, and maximizing resources for the benefit of its Jewish population at the expense of Palestinians. It then analyses the laws, policies and practices which have, over time, come to constitute the main tools for establishing and maintaining this system, and which discriminate against and segregate Palestinians in Israel and the OPT today, as well as controlling Palestinian refugees’ right to return. It divides this analysis by the key components of this system of oppression and domination: territorial fragmentation, segregation and control, dispossession of land and property and the suppression of Palestinians’ human development and deprivation of their economic and social rights.
Until a court of competent jurisdiction applies the law and a prosecutor charges and secures a conviction of someone, who isn’t South African, it’s literally a novel legal theory.
What a strange way to deny the ongoing reality of apartheid in Israel. You get that never even happened for South Africa right? By your arbitrary standards, South Africa wasn’t an apartheid state either.
If you take a look at the ongoing human rights abuses, you can see exactly how the oppression of Palestinians have been institutionalized to maintain domination and supremacy. None of this is theoretical.
Unless you’re in denial about the multiple international definitions of Apartheid, plus the multiple reports by human rights organizations going through those definitions along with decades of on-the-ground investigations, it’s overwhelmingly clear that Israel is an Apartheid State.
Because if you did, you’d realize “as practiced in South Africa” is not a quote found within the entire Rome Statute. Nor is it in Article II of the Apartheid Convention. In the Rome Statute, you can find the Crime of Apartheid listed in Article 7, 2. h) as the following
“The crime of apartheid” means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized 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
In the Apartheid Convention:
Article II then lists specific inhuman acts that committed in this context amount to the crime under international law of apartheid, ranging from violent ones such as murder and torture to legislative, administrative and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participating in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and deny them basic human rights and freedoms.
Unless you meant to reference Article II of the ICSPCA, which lists the crime of apartheid as the following
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:
Every, international definition of Apartheid is about the inhumane acts for the establishment and maintaining of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination. That’s what they are talking about “as practiced in South Africa” not your made up definition.
The defining policies of Apartheid are overwhelmingly present in Israel, for all three of the international definitions of Apartheid.
I just don’t see it that way. I suppose long-term it trends that way but in the short term, it’s a very well armed vassal state with a form of government and civilian populatiom worth preserving.
To me it’s like this: Israel has all the ordinance and warheads it would need to turn the Middle East into smoldering ruin from Tehran to Cairo. That’s a vassal state that is more dangerous to humanity if the reigns of American (and international) support are removed. If Israel and Iran know the US won’t back up Israel, then it stops being a vassalary war and starts being a hot, open war. I don’t know how many deaths it would take to convince me an unprotected Israel is safer for humanity than the current one but it’s a hell of a lot more than low-mid five figures. I’m thinking of the safety and rights of millions of lives. I think an open war with Iran would lead to an unprecedented humanitarian and refugee catastrophe that would result in a cascade of failed states enveloping the mideast and eastern Europe, at minimum.
At the same time, Israel has all the institutions it needs right now to vote Bibi and his right wing fanatic friends out of office and I have hope the Israeli people will do that very soon. Democracy is too rare and precious to cede. Democracy is the path to lasting peace and human rights. Say that in Hamas territory and see if you don’t get stoned to death in front of a raucous crowd. So I’m not ready to feed it to the wolves.
An apartheid state is incompatible with peace and human rights
That’s a novel legal theory. I understand it has a lot of traction in fundraising circles and in nonprofits, and among interested associates of Tehran.
International Law is not a “novel legal theory,” neither is Israel’s institutionalized apartheid regime of systematic oppression and domination of Palestinians.
Amnesty International Report (page 61)
Human Rights Watch Report
B’TSelem Report, Explainer
Until a court of competent jurisdiction applies the law and a prosecutor charges and secures a conviction of someone, who isn’t South African, it’s literally a novel legal theory.
What a strange way to deny the ongoing reality of apartheid in Israel. You get that never even happened for South Africa right? By your arbitrary standards, South Africa wasn’t an apartheid state either.
If you take a look at the ongoing human rights abuses, you can see exactly how the oppression of Palestinians have been institutionalized to maintain domination and supremacy. None of this is theoretical.
Unless you’re in denial about the multiple international definitions of Apartheid, plus the multiple reports by human rights organizations going through those definitions along with decades of on-the-ground investigations, it’s overwhelmingly clear that Israel is an Apartheid State.
Yes. It was a new paradigm in racial discrimination, an aggravated form that the world had never seen before, during, or since.
Also not true, it was the landmark situation that got Apartheid enshrined into international law.
Chattel Slavery in the US has been considered an Apartheid State, same with other western Colonial and imperialist nations before abolition.
All definitions: “as practiced in South Africa.”
Have you read any of the definitions?
Because if you did, you’d realize “as practiced in South Africa” is not a quote found within the entire Rome Statute. Nor is it in Article II of the Apartheid Convention. In the Rome Statute, you can find the Crime of Apartheid listed in Article 7, 2. h) as the following
In the Apartheid Convention:
Unless you meant to reference Article II of the ICSPCA, which lists the crime of apartheid as the following
Every, international definition of Apartheid is about the inhumane acts for the establishment and maintaining of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination. That’s what they are talking about “as practiced in South Africa” not your made up definition.
The defining policies of Apartheid are overwhelmingly present in Israel, for all three of the international definitions of Apartheid.