Sorry Groggy but that "tribunal" hasn't got anything to do with any government anywhere. It's just a bunch of haters who got together to hate Israel, it has no authority, no credibility, and it certainly does not represent the views of any country.
It's been pointed out that calling Israel an "apartheid state" is lying slander, but I guess you don't care about that. You are willing to debase yourself and resort to lies and slander because your hatred of Israel is satisfied more by lying and by slandering than by being honest or accurate or truthful.
The Tribunal finds that Israel subjects the Palestinian people to an institutionalised regime of domination amounting to apartheid as defined under international law. This discriminatory regime manifests in varying intensity and forms against different categories of Palestinians depending on their location. The Palestinians living under colonial military rule in the Occupied Palestinian Territory are subject to a particularly aggravated form of apartheid. Palestinian citizens of Israel, while entitled to vote, are not part of the Jewish nation as defined by Israeli law and are therefore excluded from the benefits of Jewish nationality and subject to systematic discrimination across the broad spectrum of recognised human rights. Irrespective of such differences, the Tribunal concludes that Israel’s rule over the Palestinian people, wherever they reside, collectively amounts to a single integrated regime of apartheid.
Typical response.Now you're justifying your lying slander by reference to a fraud tribunal? Great.
You really don't care about the truth huh?
I didn't say it had legal standing.So explain to me how the "Russell Tribunal" is a tribunal? What legal standing does it have?
Answer: It has no legal standing, and no authority, it is just a collection of Israel haters getting together to publish some propaganda.
The 'Israel isn't an apartheid state' argument has been argument ad nauseam in this forum, with credible back up references and no one really cares to rehash it with someone lime yourself who clearly doesn't understand english.I didn't say it had legal standing.
What it is, is a detailed look into Israeli policy in the hopes of bringing to light injustices to work towards peace.
And what is apparent here, is other then your usual insults, you have no defense of Israel's policies or reasonable argument why Israel is not an apartheid state.
Good that you know: So I guess you won't be quoting it as if it is an authoritative source. We'll agree that it's just a forum for Israel's critics to get together and publish their views, and not any sort of investigation or unbiased source of information.I didn't say it had legal standing.
Which, of course, means nothing.I'll still be quoting it as an authoritative source, don't you worry.
.
So then, Rid, you support:Which, of course, means nothing.
Inhuman Acts of Apartheid
Individual inhuman acts committed in the context of such a system are defined by international law as crimes of apartheid. The jury heard abundant evidence of practices that constitute 'inhuman acts' perpetrated against the Palestinian people by the Israeli authorities. These include:
Widespread deprivation of Palestinian life through military operations and incursions, a formal policy of 'targeted killings', and the use of lethal force against demonstrations.
Torture and ill-treatment of Palestinians in the context of widespread deprivation of liberty through policies of arbitrary arrest and administrative detention without charge. The jury finds that such measures frequently go Beyond what is reasonably justified by security concerns and amount to a form of domination over the Palestinians as a group.
Systematic human rights violations that preclude Palestinian development and prevent the Palestinians as a group from participating in political, economic, social and cultural life. Palestinian refugees who remain displaced are also victims of apartheid by virtue of the ongoing denial of their right to return to their homes, as well as by laws that remove their property and citizenship rights. Policies of forced population transfer remain widespread, particularly in the occupied Palestinian territory.
Civil and political rights of Palestinians including rights to movement, residence, free opinion and association are severely curtailed. Palestinian socio-economic rights are also adversely affected by discriminatory Israeli policies in the spheres of education, health and housing.
Since 1948 the Israeli authorities have pursued concerted policies of colonisation and appropriation of Palestinian land. Israel has through its laws and practices divided the Israeli Jewish and Palestinian populations and allocated them different physical spaces, with varying levels and quality of infrastructure, services and access to resources. The end result is wholesale territorial fragmentation and a series of separate reserves and enclaves, with the two groups largely segregated. The Tribunal heard evidence to the effect that such a policy is formally described in Israel as hafrada, Hebrew for 'separation'.
As usual you have missed my point.So then, Rid, you support:
So you know it's propaganda, but you're going to quote it as an "authoritative source".I'll still be quoting it as an authoritative source, don't you worry.
Its authoritative in fact that it discussed legal and political issues in a clear and definitive way featured well resputed jurors.As usual you have missed my point.
My point is the fact that you consider something authoritative is meaningless.
Pity it did not include any well respected jurists.Its authoritative in fact that it discussed legal and political issues in a clear and definitive way featured well resputed jurors.
Can you point me to a more authoritative tribunal or decision on the matter?
Would it clarify it as the 'most' authoritative source?
Here you go:
Israel is an apartheid state according to the most authoritative sources.
Feel better now?
Here's what how the tribunal describes itself:Pity it did not include any well respected jurists.
And you have not pointed to either a tribunal or decision on the matter, because this group are not a tribunal nor are they empowered to deliver decisions of any sort.
As it says, it operates as a court of people. Think of it as a yet another formation of the Arab spring or the occupy wall street movement, another case where concerned citizen's get together to try to right injustice. You can try to slam it as much as you like, but just remember, people around the world are concerned enough about the matter to work together on the issue. All your insults based on its standings or jurors just align you further as a bully against human rights.The Russell Tribunal on Palestine (RToP) is an international citizen-based Tribunal of conscience created in response to the demands of civil society (NGOs, charities, unions, faith-based organisations) to inform and mobilise public opinion and put pressure on decision makers. In view of the failure to implement the Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004 of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) concerning the construction by Israel of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the failure to implement resolution ES-10/15 confirming the ICJ Opinion, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 20 July 2004, and the Gaza events of December 2008 – January 2009, committees were established in different countries to promote and sustain a citizen's initiative in support of the rights of the Palestinian people.
The RToP is imbued with the same spirit and espouses the same rigorous rules as those inherited from the Tribunal on Vietnam (1966-1967), which was established by the eminent scholar and philosopher Bertrand Russell, and the second Russell Tribunal on Latin America (1974-1976), organized by the Lelio Basso International Foundation for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples. The tribunal has no legal status; it operates as a court of the people.
The Israeli Government was invited to present its case before the Tribunal but chose not to exercise this right and provided no answer to correspondence from the RToP.
Neither Arab Spring or Occupy wrapped themselves in quasi-judicial languages or proceedings. They are protesters who took some risk.Here's what how the tribunal describes itself:
As it says, it operates as a court of people. Think of it as a yet another formation of the Arab spring or the occupy wall street movement, another case where concerned citizen's get together to try to right injustice. You can try to slam it as much as you like, but just remember, people around the world are concerned enough about the matter to work together on the issue. All your insults based on its standings or jurors just align you further as a bully against human rights.
It certainly discussed legal and political issues, but it certainly did not have well respected jurors. We also discuss legal and political issues here, so it sounds like it's about as authoritative as the terb political forum.Its authoritative in fact that it discussed legal and political issues in a clear and definitive way featured well resputed jurors.
