The One Spa

Why do Americans consider Israel their closest ally?

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,011
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
The immigration law is the most obvious.
The immigration law does not apply to Israeli Arab citizens. It only applies to non citizens, by definition.

You fail.

It's a law created by one group (Israeli Jews) that gives a preference of unparalleled power to that group.
It's clearly designed to ensure that Israel remains a Jewish state, but that's quite different than saying the Israeli state discriminates against any of its citizens.

I know you are too stupid, and too hateful, to comprehend the difference--but that's fine, so long as everybody else here recognizes that you are stupid and hateful it's all good!
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,011
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
I don't think the Palestinian Israeli's who are living in refugee camps share the same rights. But, in the world of zionism, ethnicity is destiny.
You have no legal basis for your cockamanie view that people born in Jordan are Israeli citizens. For that matter, there isn't really any basis to claim that those who fled Israel in advance of the creation of the Israeli state are Israeli citizens.

I mean:

-- They don't consider themselves to be Israeli citizens
-- Israel doesn't consider them to be Israeli citizens
-- The UN doesn't consider them to be Israeli citizens

In fact pretty nobody considers them to be Israeli citizens. It's a fantasy invented by you so you can cling to one of your losing arguments, but it's even nonsensical in your world: In your world Israel has no right to exist, so Israeli citizenship is a non-existent concept to you.
 

groggy

Banned
Mar 21, 2011
15,260
0
0
Groggy, you smart person, to claim that Israel is an apartheid state you have to show that there is some law that gives preference to Jewish CITIZENS as compared to Arab CITIZENS.
That's your qualification and completely incorrect, and though it is provable, its irrelevant to the argument.

The real test is whether there are definite rules, laws and social structure designed to give one racial group preference over all others.
We've proven that, and you've even admitted that there are laws that give preference to Jews over all other groups. There is no doubt that the walls, separate court systems and social systems in the West Bank and the Gaza Bantustan are prime examples of apartheid policies. Even Tutu said South Africa was never as bad as it is in Israel now.

The detailing of the 25 racist laws provides basis for the argument that Israel has institutionalized apartheid policy.
You can't have a Jewish state, certainly facing the demographic issues they have, without instituting some form of apartheid policy. Israel could have gone in the direction of democracy, but they chose apartheid.

Israel is an apartheid state built on ethnic cleansing and Jewish terrorism.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,011
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
That's your qualification and completely incorrect, and though it is provable, its irrelevant to the argument.
So your own bizarre personal definition of the word "apartheid" means "all citizens are treated equally under the law".

Really you have no bloody clue what you are talking about. You just like the sound of the word, you don't know what it means, or how to use it.

The real test is whether there are definite rules, laws and social structure designed to give one racial group preference over all others.
I love how you think you can just make it up, that the fact these words have definitions is irrelevant to you. It's actually got a legal definition under the Statute of Rome. You just love the Statute of Rome, so you should be quite happy to use the definition of the word given there: murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, imprisonment, torture, rape, enforced disappearance, or other similarly unlawful act 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". This is not minor stuff we're talking about: Apartheid means things that are ALREADY crimes against humanity committed for the purpose of racial oppression.

Meanwhile you have been unable to show that the Israeli state oppresses its Arab minority in any way, shape, or form, let alone criminally. What you've demonstrated is that the immigration laws favour one group of foreigners over another, but you have never shown any sort of state sponsored discrimination against any group of Israeli citizens. Specifically, there is no institutionalized regime of systemic oppression of Israel's Arab citizens--they are equal, and have the same rights as anybody else in Israel. There sure as hell isn't a regime of institutionalized imprisonment, rape, and torture, etc., such as there was in South Africa!!!

What you've done is tried to wave a magic wand: Claimed that somehow discriminating between non-citizens equals discriminating between citizens. It's idiotic, but you are too dumb to see the horrendous flaw in your logic.

Here's the thing--you will never be able to show systemtic, institutionalized oppression of Israel's Arab minority because the fact and the reality is that, while there are racists individuals (on both sides) here and there in Israel, the Israeli state treats all of its citizens equally, provides them all with the same rights, the same opportunities. Unlike in an apartheid regime Israeli Arabs are served by the same hospitals, use the same roads, the same transit, can apply for the same jobs, get the same vote, they are in every way equal.

Even when it comes to the security checkpoints in the West Bank that you love to talk about--Israeli Arab citizens have equal access to those roads, same as any other citizen of Israel.

You either don't know what the word "apartheid" means, or you are too dishonest and hateful to admit that you are just wholesale making shit up.
 
Last edited:

groggy

Banned
Mar 21, 2011
15,260
0
0
So your own bizarre personal definition of the word "apartheid" means "all citizens are treated equally under the law".
No, the statute you quoted is the correct version:
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
And as for your challenge:
you will never be able to show systemtic, institutionalized oppression of Israel's Arab minority
That's not the full challenge, the full challenge is to show Israel's systematic, institutionalized oppression in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, as you say:

Israel is in control of Gaza and the West Bank. You can pass all the resolutions you like, but until IDF decides to withdraw, close down the checkpoints, lift the blockade, etc., there is no Palestinian state.
And you are quite right in the matter, which is why when we apply the test of whether or not Israel is apartheid you must include the West Bank and Gaza.
After that, there is no way to see Israel other then as an apartheid state.
 

rld

New member
Oct 12, 2010
10,664
2
0
No, the statute you quoted is the correct version:


And as for your challenge:

That's not the full challenge, the full challenge is to show Israel's systematic, institutionalized oppression in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, as you say:



And you are quite right in the matter, which is why when we apply the test of whether or not Israel is apartheid you must include the West Bank and Gaza.
After that, there is no way to see Israel other then as an apartheid state.
How nice of you to concede that Gaza and the West Bank form part of Israel proper.
 

rld

New member
Oct 12, 2010
10,664
2
0
Ah, so you also admit that the one-state solution is the only one left?
Equal rights for all!!!!!
Not at all. Your ability to read is impaired.

I bet your "friends" in the West Bank and Gaza would not be impressed with your conclusion.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,011
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
No, the statute you quoted is the correct version:
You have not shown anywhere in any way shape or form that what is in the statute occurs to Israeli citizens. Pointing to laws that apply only to non citizens sure as hell doesn't show it!

You fail, but you obviously won't admit it. You will go on like the Iraqi Information Minister, saying the most ridiculous things, long after you have been completely and fully discredited.

And you are quite right in the matter, which is why when we apply the test of whether or not Israel is apartheid you must include the West Bank and Gaza.
The West Bank and Gaza are not now, nor have they ever been, part of Israel.

I note that you have backed off your claim that Israel itself is an "apartheid state" and run away from your wrong claim that this list of 25 laws you cited made it one. It turned out those laws did not involve any discrimination against Israeli Arab citizens.
 

groggy

Banned
Mar 21, 2011
15,260
0
0
The West Bank and Gaza are not now, nor have they ever been, part of Israel.

I note that you have backed off your claim that Israel itself is an "apartheid state" and run away from your wrong claim that this list of 25 laws you cited made it one. It turned out those laws did not involve any discrimination against Israeli Arab citizens.
They are under the occupation of Israel, and under Israeli rule. Even though Israel allows some autonomy for local governments, it is only at the discretion of Israel and as such Israel is responsible for the apartheid rules in Gaza and the West Bank. That, along with the 25 racist laws and 8 racist bills, some of whom target Palestinians with Israeli citizenship, some target Palestinian refugees and some just give preferential treatment to Jews, confirm apartheid through Israel and the occupied lands.

Israel has chosen apartheid over democracy, built upon ethnic cleansing and Jewish terrorism.

I'll keep putting that on the end of every post here, since it appears you miss it when its not there.
Just for you, Fuji.


And as an added bonus, I'll keep posting bits from articles detailing apartheid policies, like this one:
This morning six Palestinian activists, accompanied by a phalanx of journalists, were barred from entering Jerusalem. Police ordered them off the bus, but they refused. After about an hour, they were arrested and pulled off the bus.

“My point isn’t go to jail — my point is to have the freedom to get on a bus,” said 38-year-old civil servant Badia Dwaik.

The activists call themselves “Freedom Riders” after the bus desegregation actions of the 60s in the United States, whose most well-known icon was Rosa Parks.

Palestinians are not allowed to enter the West Bank Jews-only settlements in which certain bus companies exclusively run. One settler was angry the activists had boarded: “This is our bus,” she said, adding: “Quite simply, we are afraid of them.” One wonders why, then, she moved to Palestine.

The interaction between the checkpoint policeman and Dwaik is a textbook example of the banality of evil, but also of calm courage in the face of an uncaring bureaucracy.

“I am not going to obey your discriminatory law,” Dwaik told the policeman, speaking Arabic.

“So you are detained,” the policeman said, also in Arabic.

“Fine. I am not moving.”
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,011
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
They are under the occupation of Israel, and under Israeli rule.
Yes they are under occupation by Israel, but they are not part of Israel, not anymore than Afghanistan or Iraq were part of the United States when they were occupied.

I don't think you have the least foggiest comprehension of that point.

You like the sound of the word "apartheid" but you have demonstrated that you don't know what it means, don't know how to use the word, and can't explain why anybody should think it applies to Israel.

The word "apartheid" requires things like institutionalized murder, torture, and incarceration. You haven't even been able to show any kind of discrimination at all against Arab Israelis, let alone anything extreme enough to be worthy of the word "apartheid".
 

groggy

Banned
Mar 21, 2011
15,260
0
0
The word "apartheid" requires things like institutionalized murder, torture, and incarceration. You haven't even been able to show any kind of discrimination at all against Arab Israelis, let alone anything extreme enough to be worthy of the word "apartheid".
No it doesn't.
It requires a show of systemized racial discrimination, with the goal of giving one group greater power.
Of course, since Israel tortures (and now has doctors aiding and abetting) and incarcerates freely (including children hauled off in the middle of the nights from their beds), as well as a policy of murder (or targeted assassination, as you prefer), a case could easily be made with your wrong guidelines.

Apartheid:
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.

Sounds like Israel to me.

Israel has chosen apartheid over democracy, built upon ethnic cleansing and Jewish terrorism.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,011
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
No it doesn't.
Yes, in fact, it does. You agreed we would use the Statute of Rome as the definition, and that's how it defines "apartheid".

I love how you cut out key things from definitions, you wrote:

Groggy the Liar said:
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
but the ACTUAL quote is

Statute of Rome said:
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;
See the bolded part? The part YOU DECIDED TO OMIT? I wonder why you would want to leave out the reference to "in the context of" paragraph 1? Gee, what do you we are going to find in paragraph 1?

Oh look:

Statute of Rome said:
(a) Murder;
(b) Extermination;

(c) Enslavement;

(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;

(f) Torture;

(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;

(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;

(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;

...
In other words, "apartheid" exists only when crimes against humanity are committed in the the context of institutionalized racism.

So it's not enough for you to say Israel discriminates somewhere in some minor way, to claim apartheid you have to show that Israel commits crimes against humanity, like murder or rape or torture or arbitrary imprisonment, against its Arab citizens.

You completely have no idea what you are talking about.

PREDICTION: You will now change the topic and avoid dealing with the fact that you have just been shot down on this point, probably quote somebody, or something, to dodge admitting you are wrong.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,597
6,766
113
I think he will go on pretending that his arguments are somehow true just because he says so.
 

groggy

Banned
Mar 21, 2011
15,260
0
0
In other words, "apartheid" exists only when crimes against humanity are committed in the the context of institutionalized racism.


PREDICTION: You will now change the topic and avoid dealing with the fact that you have just been shot down on this point, probably quote somebody, or something, to dodge admitting you are wrong.
Lets take a look, shall we at:
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;

That is enough to define Israel as apartheid and that is what we have been talking of.
If you like, we can add examples of some of the other crimes of apartheid.

a) murder = targeted assassinations
that's an easy one

(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population - we could talk of recent actions against the Bedouin or we could talk about the Palestinian refugees here.
another easy one to incriminate Israel with

(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law - Numerous B'teselem reports on the imprisonment of Palestinians here, not to mention whether all of Gaza falls under this heading.

(f) Torture - see recent report on doctors hiding evidence of torture by Israelis.

(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
No need to go back here, my arguments have for the most part been under this heading, plenty of evidence here.


Charges of apartheid don't require all of the above to be checked off, charges of apartheid can be based of any one of those charges. As we've seen, there is plenty of evidence for the charges of apartheid based purely off of (h), but you could easily add 4 more categories of offenses as well, if that would make you happier.



Israel has chosen apartheid over democracy, built upon ethnic cleansing and Jewish terrorism.
Specifically, Israel's form of apartheid fall mostly under the charges of persecution of an identifiable race or religion, but other charges are probably worth investigating as well.


That's much better, isn't it?
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,011
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
Please provide your evidence that Israeli Arab citizens are subject to any of (a) through (h). Note that (h) requires an actual crime against them, it's not generic discrimination.

I think your task is impossible, because I don't even think you can demonstrate that there is NON-CRIMINAL discrimination against them: I think they are treated as fully equal citizens under Israeli law.
 

groggy

Banned
Mar 21, 2011
15,260
0
0
a) murder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_targeted_killings

d) deportation
please see 'The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine' Ilan Pappe
Bedouin
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/09/2011912151231223454.html

e) detaining minors, B'teselem
http://www.btselem.org/publications/summaries/2011-no-minor-matter

f) torture
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/03/israeli-doctors-report-torture-palestinian
http://www.btselem.org/torture

h) persecution
http://www.russelltribunalonpalestine.com/en/sessions/south-africa/cape-town-session-summary-of-findings

In sum, as the Russell Tribunal so eloquently put it:
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.

List of Racist laws and bills:

.Law of Return (1950)

2.Citizenship Law (1952)

3.Citizenship and Entry to Israel Law (2007)

4.Covenant between the Government of Israel and the Zionist Executive (1952)

5.World Zionist Organization-Jewish Agency (Status) Law (1952)

6.Keren Kayemeth le-Israel Law (1953)

7.Covenant with Zionist Executive (1954, 1971)

8.The Chief Rabbinate of Israel Law (1980)

9.The Flag and Emblem Law (1949)

10.The State Education Law (1953) and its 2000 amendment

11.Absentee Property Law (1950)

12.The Land Acquisition Law (1953)

13.Basic Law: Israel Lands [The People’s Lands] (1960)

14.Agricultural Settlement Law (1967)

15.Basic Law: The Knesset (1958), Amendment 9 (1985)

16.The Israel Land Administration (ILA) Law (2009)

17.Amendment (2010) to The Land (Acquisition for Public Purposes) Ordinance (1943)

18.The Admissions Committees Law (2011)

19.The Israel Lands Law (Amendment No. 3) (2011)

20.The Economic Efficiency Law (Legislative Amendments for Implementing the Economic Plan

21.Absorption of Discharged Soldiers Law (1994) [2008 amendment]

22.Absorption of Discharged Soldiers Law (1994) (Amendment No. 12) (2010)

23.Law (2011) to Amend to the Budgets Foundations Law, Amendment No. 40 (The “Nakba Law”)

24.The Regional Councils Law (Date of General Elections) (1994) Special Amendment No. 6 (2009)

25.Duty of Disclosure for Recipients of Support from a Foreign Political Entity Law (2011) (“NGO Foreign Government Funding Law”)

Bills:

1.Bill to amend the Citizenship Law (1952) imposing loyalty oath for persons seeking naturalization in Israel and Israeli citizens seeking first ID cards

2.Bill (2009) to amend the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty and limit the judicial review powers of the Supreme Court to rule on matters of citizenship .

3.Bill Granting Preference in Civil Service Appointments to Former Soldiers

4.Bill Awarding Preferences in Services to Former Soldiers

5.Bill to Prohibit Imposing a Boycott (2010) (“Ban on BDS Bill”)

6.The Associations (Amutot) Law (Amendment – Exceptions to the Registration and Activity of an Association) (2010) (“Universal Jurisdiction Bill”)

7.Bill to Protect the Values of the State of Israel (Amendment Legislation) (2009) (“Jewish and Democratic State Bill”)

8.The new cinema bill – would regulate and condition that any state funds would be given to film makers only after they have signed a loyalty declaration to Israel and its institutions as ‘a Jewish state’.


Now, do you have any defense at all?
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,011
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
In other words--you've got nothing. Almost none of those things apply to Israeli Arab citizens. They all have to do with foreigners outside of Israel.

The few that do certainly do not amount to crimes against humanity.

You better come up with something soon or you'll be forced to apologize, I know how much you hate that. I mean really--Israel is an "apartheid state" because its citizens are meant to recognize it as a Jewish state? Can you identify which crime against humanity that is, per the ICC? It doesn't sound like murder, rape, arbitrary detention to me. In fact it doesn't even really seem like it's discrimination.
 

groggy

Banned
Mar 21, 2011
15,260
0
0
They all have to do with the persecution and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians towards an apartheid society.
Detailed by protests like this within Israel:
Palestinians embark on civil disobedience protests against 'demographic segregation'
'We have the right to reach Jerusalem. Why doesn't a settler need an entry permit? We do not obey apartheid rules. We're Palestinian, and this is Palestine,' protesters insisted.

This was the first in a series of civil disobedience actions planned to protest what the organizers call "demographic segregation," which forbids Palestinians from reaching East Jerusalem, while allowing a two-tier transportation system in the West Bank: one for Israelis and one for Palestinians. The protestors were inspired by the American Civil Rights Movement's Freedom Riders, who boarded buses fifty years ago to protest segregation in the southern states.

...

Up until they were arrested and dragged away, the Freedom Riders insisted: "We have the right to reach Jerusalem. Why doesn't a settler need an entry permit? We do not obey apartheid rules. We're Palestinian, and this is Palestine."

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/palestinians-embark-on-civil-disobedience-protests-against-demographic-segregation-1.395820



Now, I've presented the evidence and you have presented nothing in defense.
The case has been made and there is no defense.

Israel is apartheid.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts