Try and keep up slow poke, it’s irrelevant because it’s a wall of text everyone here talking about this has already read. You don’t need to constantly link things to me that I’ve already seen.
The Rome Statute says “as practiced in South Africa.”
That means it’s about policies that are of the same character and kind as they had in South Africa.
The defining policies of Apartheid are simply not present in Israel, so you must agree you are making a stretch.
Have you? Because if you did, you’d realize “as practiced in South Africa” is not a quote found within the entire Rome Statute. In the Rome Statute, which I linked, 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
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:
Both, on fact 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 “the same character and kind as they had in South Africa” not your made up definition of minority rule.
The defining policies of Apartheid are overwhelmingly present in Israel, for all three of the international definitions of Apartheid.
Sure. I hope you take another look at the Amnesty report on Apartheid, along with the others. Even the B’TSelem quick Explainer does a decent job.
When in 1977, the United Nations passed the resolution inaugurating the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian people, it was asserting the recognition that injustice and gross human rights violations were being perpetrated in Palestine. In the same period, the UN took a strong stand against apartheid; and over the years, an international consensus was built, which helped to bring an end to this iniquitous system.
But we know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians; without the resolution of conflicts in East Timor, the Sudan and other parts of the world.
But in that quote he’s literally saying that the UN recognized the plight of people in Palestine and in South African apartheid, and then ended the system of apartheid.
What does that say about the system in Palestine?
This is not evidence of Nelson Mandela stating that the situation in Israel is literally apartheid.
At best it is a presuppossed, vague comparison.
Yes, it is unjust. That doesn’t mean it is Apartheid. Hey Charlie
No, that quote was also in 1997 before the second Intifada.
It is the international definitions of apartheid that show that Israel is an apartheid state.
Mandela and South African leaders after him compared the restrictions Israel placed on Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank with the treatment of Black South Africans during apartheid, framing the two issues as fundamentally about people oppressed in their homeland. Israel provided weapons systems to South Africa’s apartheid government and maintained secret military ties with it up until the mid-1980s, even after publicly denouncing apartheid.
It was Zwelivelile Mandela who directly called Israel an Apartheid State.
Addressing a large audience, Mandela said that the Nation-State Law passed in 2018 declaring Israel to be the historical homeland of the Jewish people “confirmed what we have always known to be the true character and reality of Israel: Israel is an apartheid state”.
He also outlined what had constituted apartheid for black South Africans – from the creation of bantustan reservations to land expropriation and the daily assault on dignity.
“All these characteristics were present in apartheid Israel since its inception but have now been codified and given a constitutional status and expression by the Nation-State Law.
“Apartheid Israel perpetuates statutory discrimination through the very definition by the law as a Jewish state; by doing so it renders non-Jews as second-class citizens, alternately as foreigners in the land of their birth.”
Nobody is disputing that people compare it. I’m also not disputing that there is a hyper modern converted effort to define Israel as an Apartheid state.
You’re supposed to be providing evidence that as originally understood and as codified into law, Israel is literally an apartheid state.
Citing people who made comparisons is not evidence on this point nor is citing modern sources who, I am suggesting, have been misled or miseducated.
Maybe I am he one that was miseducated. Maybe the statutory codification of the international crime of apartheid was meant to be broad enough to include Israel even though it lacks the hallmark policies of Apartheid but I am not persuaded so far.
Back to your Mandella quote, the part about the world putting an end to Apartheid, and doing things like codifying it into international law. That began in 1973. In 1969, the UN had just adopted the convention against racial discrimination.
By your edtimation, what are the distinguish features as between the racial discrimination convention and he apartheid convention?
Try and keep up slow poke, it’s irrelevant because it’s a wall of text everyone here talking about this has already read. You don’t need to constantly link things to me that I’ve already seen.
The Rome Statute says “as practiced in South Africa.”
That means it’s about policies that are of the same character and kind as they had in South Africa.
The defining policies of Apartheid are simply not present in Israel, so you must agree you are making a stretch.
Have you? Because if you did, you’d realize “as practiced in South Africa” is not a quote found within the entire Rome Statute. In the Rome Statute, which I linked, you can find the Crime of Apartheid listed in Article 7, 2. h) as the following
Unless you meant to reference Article II of the ICSPCA, which lists the crime of apartheid as the following
Both, on fact 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 “the same character and kind as they had in South Africa” not your made up definition of minority rule.
The defining policies of Apartheid are overwhelmingly present in Israel, for all three of the international definitions of Apartheid.
Except that it’s not really like it was in South Africa without that bit is it?
And now I also think you are being stupid.
What? Yes, in many cases, it’s worse than Apartheid in South Africa. What do you think Nelson Mandala has said about Israel being an Apartheid State?
You tell me what he said.
Sure. I hope you take another look at the Amnesty report on Apartheid, along with the others. Even the B’TSelem quick Explainer does a decent job.
More sources:
A decade after Mandela’s death, his pro-Palestinian legacy lives on - Reuters
Nelson Mandela’s support for Palestinians endures with South Africa’s genocide case against Israel - PBS
But in that quote he’s literally saying that the UN recognized the plight of people in Palestine and in South African apartheid, and then ended the system of apartheid.
What does that say about the system in Palestine?
This is not evidence of Nelson Mandela stating that the situation in Israel is literally apartheid.
At best it is a presuppossed, vague comparison.
Yes, it is unjust. That doesn’t mean it is Apartheid. Hey Charlie
No, that quote was also in 1997 before the second Intifada.
It is the international definitions of apartheid that show that Israel is an apartheid state.
It was Zwelivelile Mandela who directly called Israel an Apartheid State.
Nobody is disputing that people compare it. I’m also not disputing that there is a hyper modern converted effort to define Israel as an Apartheid state.
You’re supposed to be providing evidence that as originally understood and as codified into law, Israel is literally an apartheid state.
Citing people who made comparisons is not evidence on this point nor is citing modern sources who, I am suggesting, have been misled or miseducated.
Maybe I am he one that was miseducated. Maybe the statutory codification of the international crime of apartheid was meant to be broad enough to include Israel even though it lacks the hallmark policies of Apartheid but I am not persuaded so far.
Back to your Mandella quote, the part about the world putting an end to Apartheid, and doing things like codifying it into international law. That began in 1973. In 1969, the UN had just adopted the convention against racial discrimination.
By your edtimation, what are the distinguish features as between the racial discrimination convention and he apartheid convention?