The Russell Tribunal on Palestine: Findings

[blackrock13]

Pointing out that your opponent's claim is factually untrue is never a straw man argument.

You know that many of those 25 laws are not racist, but continue to repeat an untruth.

What does that make you? What does that do to your argument?

To paraphrase Einstein, groggy's is insane.

 

[groggy]

You haven't shown how any one of those 25 laws can be considered a crime against humanity against Israel's Arab citizens.

Your argument has been debunked and it isn't going to become true just because you repeat it again. You have to show how there is a crime against humanity against some of Israel's citizens. You haven't.

Why would I?
Its not needed to make the case that Israel is apartheid.
You need to read the Russell Tribunals arguments, reread the definition of apartheid and start again.
The case has been made and you have no reasonable argument against it.
Israel is an apartheid state.

 

[rld]

Why would I?

Because you claimed them as having some value in your argument. In you now suggest they don't, I guess we can move on.

 

[fuji]

Why would I?
Its not needed to make the case that Israel is apartheid.

Actually, yes it is, the term "apartheid" is clearly defined in the Statute of Rome to mean crimes against humanity when committed in the context of systemic oppression.

As I said--you don't even know what the word means, you are monumentally stupid, and are fueled by your hate without regard to the facts. You don't know what the law says, what the words mean, and you don't care either--you just like the sound of it, even though you are too stupid to know what the word actually means.

 

[groggy]

Fuji, here is the definition again:

The crime of apartheid is defined by the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as inhumane acts of a character similar to other crimes against humanity "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."

On 30 November 1973, the United Nations General Assembly opened for signature and ratification the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid.[1] It defined the crime of apartheid as "inhuman 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."

Nowhere in that definition is the need to show crimes against humanity, though the collective punishment of Gaza has been shown to be just such a crime against humanity by Goldstone and the UN, it just adds more material to the case. What needs to be shown is systematic oppression of one group over another, which is what the 25 laws show.

 

[blackrock13]

Fuji, here is the definition again:



Nowhere in that definition is the need to show crimes against humanity, though the collective punishment of Gaza has been shown to be just such a crime against humanity by Goldstone and the UN, it just adds more material to the case. What needs to be shown is systematic oppression of one group over another, which is what the 25 laws show.

FFS, here you go with Goldstone again. You're a freakin' broken record. By the way, the Israeli and the Palestinians are of the same race. Just sayin'.

 

[rld]

Fuji, here is the definition again:



Nowhere in that definition is the need to show crimes against humanity, though the collective punishment of Gaza has been shown to be just such a crime against humanity by Goldstone and the UN, it just adds more material to the case. What needs to be shown is systematic oppression of one group over another, which is what the 25 laws show.

Oh look, the 25 laws BS again...

 

[fuji]

Fuji, here is the definition again:
...misquote...
Nowhere in that definition is the need to show crimes against humanity

Do you think you can win arguments by blatantly misquoting things? You cut off the part of the quote that refers to crimes against humanity and then said it didn't reference crimes against humanity. You are a propaganda clown.

Wait let me guess--you have never read or looked at the Statute or Rome yourself. You are cutting and pasting from some propaganda source, without comprehension, without fact checking, and not bothering to notice that the propaganda source is.. hey.. propaganda, and has left out some important details that are there in the Statute of Rome.

For reference here is the complete text of Article 7 of the Statute of Rome:

1. For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

(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;

(j) The crime of apartheid;

(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

2. For the purpose of paragraph 1:

(a) "Attack directed against any civilian population" means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack;

(b) "Extermination" includes the intentional infliction of conditions of life, inter alia the deprivation of access to food and medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population;

(c) "Enslavement" means the exercise of any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over a person and includes the exercise of such power in the course of trafficking in persons, in particular women and children;

(d) "Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law;

(e) "Torture" means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions;

(f) "Forced pregnancy" means the unlawful confinement of a woman forcibly made pregnant, with the intent of affecting the ethnic composition of any population or carrying out other grave violations of international law. This definition shall not in any way be interpreted as affecting national laws relating to pregnancy;

(g) "Persecution" means the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity;

(h) "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;

(i) "Enforced disappearance of persons" means the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.

You will note that the acts in paragraph 1 are crimes against humanity (and explicitly defined as such, paragraph 1 being the formal definition of "crime against humanity").

In summary if you want to claim Israel is an "apartheid state" you need to show that it commits crimes against humanity against its Arab citizens, and that it does so as a form of systematic oppression and domination (and not, say, for security reasons).

Your comment about the West Bank or Gaza is irrelevant as the West Bank and Gaza are Palestine, not Israel, and the people living there are not Israeli citizens, they are Palestinian citizens.

 

[groggy]

Fuji, I do wish you had taken that remedial comprehension course for your reading a long time ago, would have saved us so much time.

First of all, you took the section from the statute that gives the definition for 'crimes against humanity', which includes the crime of apartheid as a subset, or one of the possible 'crimes against humanity'. Do you understand what that means? Here, let me wait for a few minutes and see if it sinks in. Got it yet? I'll give you a hint.

The policy of apartheid itself is a crime against humanity. You don't have to commit all the other crimes against humanity to equal apartheid, you could keep yourself happy committing murder (or targeted assassinations as you call them), deportation of a population (read any news about the Bedouin lately?), imprisonment (those B'teselem studies ring a bell, don't they) or your basic persecution of an identifiable group (Palestinians are a group, aren't they?) or finally apartheid. Commit any of those and you've committed a crime against humanity (or you've created your own little paradise as you seem to think).

So no, I don't need to show that Israel commits crimes against humanity to make a claim that Israel is apartheid. All I need to do is make the case that there is 'an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression by one racial group over another' and by that virtue, Israel is apartheid and then they are, by virtue of the statute, guilty of a crime against humanity. Its not the other way around.

Got it yet?

And as for your last statement, as you have said before 'there is no Palestinian nation'. That's all from the handiwork of Israel, so yes, Israel is responsible for the apartheid roads, separate court systems in the west bank and for the walls around the Bantustan of Gaza.

 

[shapeup1]

What a piece of toilet paper ....where are all the tribunals for all the crimes against humanity and wars of Africa? How about Papua? Armenians? Not good enough? How about most of the Arab countries that kill their own people? Mickey mouse court.....eat shit.

 

[fuji]

Groggy, you can't really win a debate by being too stupid to get the point.

Let's look at the first part of the definition: The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of...

So for there to be apartheid there have to be "inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1". And what acts do we find in paragraph 1? Crimes against humanity: murder, extermination, enslavement, and so on. This isn't "somebody looked at me funny". This is murder, extermination, and enslavement territory, acts that are so inhuman and unjust that they are crimes against humanity.

Meanwhile what have you produced so far? You think it is unfair that Israel offers significant benefits to those who serve in its military because Arabs--while fully entitled to join the military, and some indeed do, and have done well in it--have mostly not done so. This is your crime against humanity, or at least an act you are holding up as "of a character similar to" systematic rape, extermination, murder, and enslavement?

You are P A T H E T I C.

Just admit you were wrong and move on.

 

[groggy]

Groggy, you can't really win a debate by being too stupid to get the point.

Let's look at the first part of the definition: The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of...

So for there to be apartheid there have to be "inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1". And what acts do we find in paragraph 1? Crimes against humanity: murder, extermination, enslavement, and so on. This isn't "somebody looked at me funny". This is murder, extermination, and enslavement territory, acts that are so inhuman and unjust that they are crimes against humanity.

Meanwhile what have you produced so far? You think it is unfair that Israel offers significant benefits to those who serve in its military because Arabs--while fully entitled to join the military, and some indeed do, and have done well in it--have mostly not done so. This is your crime against humanity, or at least an act you are holding up as "of a character similar to" systematic rape, extermination, murder, and enslavement?

You are P A T H E T I C.

Just admit you were wrong and move on.

Take a look at the definition again, Fuji.
The definition of terms occur after the number 2.
Now take a look again at h).
If you commit the charge in letter h) alone, in the context of 'institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group', then that alone is enough to base the charge of apartheid on, since it in of itself is 'crime against humanity'. In other words, the systematic persecution in laws alone is enough to make a charge of apartheid. When you add in the apartheid roads and court system in the west bank, the bantustan in gaza, the murder, detention, deportation of population and attacks targeting civilian populations you create a very solid argument.


The charges in letter h) Persecution against any identifiable group, is enough of a 'crime against humanity' to make the charge of apartheid stick.

 

[fuji]

Groggy you don't have a fucking clue. You really think that the Statute defines apartheid in a circular way? It doesn't. You have to commit a crime similar to murder, torture, extermination, etc., in the context of racial oppression. That is the bar and you haven't met it.

The crime in h requires one of the other crimes to be committed in the context specified by h. What other crime is it that has been committed? You don't know. You never knew. You have no answer.

 

[groggy]

The crime in h requires one of the other crimes to be committed in the context specified by h. What other crime is it that has been committed? You don't know. You never knew. You have no answer.

Persecution is a crime in of itself.
You really don't understand the document, do you?

Besides which, if you'd read the Russell Tribunal findings, you'd have seen that they made a case for crimes falling under a), d), e), f), h) and of course, your favourite, j)
That is:
murder
deportation
imprisonment
torture
persecution
apartheid

And go ahead, keep on defending these practices.
Israel really is an apartheid state built on ethnic cleansing and Jewish terrorism.
You should really consider moving there, so as to fully enjoy these acts you so like to defend.

As said, I'm on holiday from banging my head on a wall in talking to you.
It really is like taking to some drunk at a party who thinks that theosophy is the ultimate.

 

[fuji]

Persecution is a crime in of itself.

No, it isn't. You are proving how stupid you are now. Considering the whole text has been pasted here for you (and everyone else) to read it's unbelievable you haven't actually bothered to read what it says.

(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;

You are really, really stupid.

I am still waiting for you to identify ONE systematic crime against humanity against Israel's Arab citizens. Just ONE. Given you claim there are so many you really ought to be able to come up with ONE.

 

[groggy]

I am still waiting for you to identify ONE systematic crime against humanity against Israel's Arab citizens. Just ONE. Given you claim there are so many you really ought to be able to come up with ONE.

One?
I just gave you 6.


Hey, before I give up banging my head on a wall here, have a listen to the words of your opposition leader, Tzipi Livni:

"We've always prided ourselves on being the only democracy in the Middle East," Livni said, referring to the uprising in Egypt. "We were a democracy and they were A dictatorship. Now, they are trying to become a democracy, while we – with these bills – are heading towards dictatorship.

"We, the Israeli-Zionist majority, will not choose between a Jewish state and a democracy and this fight is at our door."


She then slammed the prime minister: "What was it you said once? 'They're all afraid?' You've taken over the Israel Broadcast Authority. I hear the Educational Channel and Army Radio are next for you.

"Soon, we'll see how IBA airtime is given to parrots, who will recite announcements by the Prime Minister's Office… Why should anyone believe you when you say the social protest has inspired you to instate changes?"

Kadima, she vowed, "Will continue to fight for the freedom of the press, for the status of the courts, for freedom of speech and for national service for all. The Israeli-Zionist majority who cares will overcome this, as well," she concluded.

At least some Israeli's are showing decency.

 

[fuji]

One?
I just gave you 6.

None of your examples panned out. They all turned out to be about non-citizens or they didn't discriminate against Arab citizens.

Note that simply being a Jewish state is not discrimination. If that's your basis for calling Israel an "apartheid state" then there are lots of "apartheid states" in the world, like Malaysia, Iran, the UK, or any Arab country. Is Iran an "apartheid state" because it is an Islamic country and discriminates in favour of Islam??? Iran has a ton of problems--like being a brutal dictatorship--but being an Islamic state is not something I ever saw as a problem. I guess you do!!

You were putting up things like Israel has Jewish symbols on its flag as an example of "apartheid", that's how fucking out to lunch you are.