The immigration law does not apply to Israeli Arab citizens. It only applies to non citizens, by definition.The immigration law is the most obvious.
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.It's a law created by one group (Israeli Jews) that gives a preference of unparalleled power to that group.
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 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.
That's your qualification and completely incorrect, and though it is provable, its irrelevant to the argument.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.
So according to grog, proving his point is irrelevant to the argument.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".That's your qualification and completely incorrect, and though it is provable, its irrelevant to the argument.
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.The real test is whether there are definite rules, laws and social structure designed to give one racial group preference over all others.
No, the statute you quoted is the correct version:So your own bizarre personal definition of the word "apartheid" means "all citizens are treated equally under the law".
And as for your challenge: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
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:you will never be able to show systemtic, institutionalized oppression of Israel's Arab minority
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.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.
How nice of you to concede that Gaza and the West Bank form part of Israel proper.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.
Ah, so you also admit that the one-state solution is the only one left?How nice of you to concede that Gaza and the West Bank form part of Israel proper.
Not at all. Your ability to read is impaired.Ah, so you also admit that the one-state solution is the only one left?
Equal rights for all!!!!!
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!No, the statute you quoted is the correct version:
The West Bank and Gaza are not now, nor have they ever been, part of Israel.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.
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.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.
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.”
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.They are under the occupation of Israel, and under Israeli rule.
No it doesn't.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".
Yes, in fact, it does. You agreed we would use the Statute of Rome as the definition, and that's how it defines "apartheid".No it doesn't.
but the ACTUAL quote isGroggy 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
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?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;
In other words, "apartheid" exists only when crimes against humanity are committed in the the context of institutionalized racism.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;
...
Lets take a look, shall we at: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.
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.
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."
