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.
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.