4 ms·

The crime of apartheid has been codified in International law, it has a precise definition at the ICC[1] and the ICJ[2]. In particular the ICC defines apartheid

The crime of apartheid has been codified in International law, it has a precise definition at the ICC[1] and the ICJ[2]. In particular the ICC defines apartheid in Statute 99 part 2 article 7 paragraph 2(h), as: > "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; Aside note here: Statute 99 is known as the Rome Statute, Palestine is a party to this statute but Israel is not (withdrew in 2002). Meaning if you practice apartheid in Palestine you can be tried at the ICC, while in Israel the ICC has no jurisdiction to trial you for this specific crime. Even though the term was coined to describe the specific instance of South African apartheid, its modern day usage only keeps South Africa as a prototypical example. This is no different from how the “genocide” was coined with one prototypical example (the Armenian genocide) but has later been adopted into international law with a precise meaning laid out in the Genocide Convention[3]. Your dictionary definition is about the specific meaning of apartheid in South Africa (notice it says so in parenthesis; when looking up terms in a dictionary what is inside parentheses is for disambiguation and should be to ignored). And we are not talking about that. We are talking about apartheid in the same way that the UN does. If you want to argue that Israel does not practice South African apartheid, then that is a different argument, and I’m not gonna refute that, but then we are just arguing semantics. Regarding the specific points (a)-(f) I provided them as examples of what we mean when we accuse Israel of practicing apartheid. I wasn’t looking to argue them. There is an ongoing trial at the ICJ which is going over all of these, and more, to figure out if any of them are justifiable, not true, etc. or if they constitute a crime against humanity. You believe the former, me the latter. Finally, can you please not accuse us of “blood libel” for criticizing Israel. Israel is a modern state which deserves the scrutiny we give other states (including China). The fact is that Israel is currently being charged for these crimes at the ICJ, the UN general assembly constantly votes to indict Israel of these crimes, respectable human rights organization accuse Israel of these crimes. Either the whole world is in some conspiracy against Israel, or—more likely—there is convincing evidence that Israel does indeed break some international humanitarian laws. 1: https://legal.un.org/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm#art.7 https://legal.un.org/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm#art.7 2: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1976/07/19760718%2003-04%20AM/Ch_IV_7p.pdf https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1976/07/19760718%2003-0... 3: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Prevention_and_Punishment_of_the_Crime_of_Genocide https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Prevention_...

nsguy 3y ago
You can criticize Israel all you want without making it a blood libel. As I said, that is not a problem. I will accuse people of blood libel when part of their strategy is the intentional misuse of language to intentionally deceive and misrepresent reality or if they spread lies. If you don't like it, don't do it. You may or may not be right about the international law usage, the question is whether the person on the street understands it as such and whether you have clarified it enough that they can understand what you're talking about. This Palestine you're referring to, is that a country? What are its UN recognized borders? What does it even mean "if you practice apartheid in Palestine"? You're seriously telling me that there's more convincing evidence that Israel broke international laws than that China, or Yemen, or Syria, or Russia, or the US, or the UK, (EDIT: this list is endless but I can add to it) broke international laws? So I'll pick the "conspiracy against Israel" (or more like politics of the not free world mixed with antisemitism) until you can show me how the UN is indeed treating everyone with no bias. EDIT: Also note this is not the same as claiming that Israel broke no international laws, though I think in the specific cases you're referring to it does not. EDIT: "Israel is a modern state which deserves the scrutiny we give other states" -> totally agree. EDIT2: Even Israelis don't understand "apartheid state" to mean what you think it means. So basically nobody understands the way you put it other then maybe some international law experts (including myself honestly, I'd have to spend time reading international law). But for the purpose of our "blood libel" topic if you say "I claim Israel practices apartheid within the occupied territories of the west bank that remain under their control, not like the south african apartheid which is how this word is commonly understood, but the crime of apartheid as defined by international law XXXX" then maybe it's something we can have an intelligent debate about and I won't automatically label it as "blood libel" like I would the generic usage of "apartheid state" without any other qualifiers. EDIT3: "> "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 would need to read more details about the "inhumane acts" but it's worth pointing out that a) Israelis are not a racial group. Palestinians are also not a racial group. b) The Oslo agreements, the withdrawal from Gaza, and other peace efforts are proof that there's no "intention of maintaining that regime". Mostly it's the Palestinians that are intent on maintaining the regime. Again, I'm not going to deny what's going on in the west bank between (mostly Jewish) settlers and (mostly Arab) Palestinians but the UN/ICJ processes are just a political circus with no fairness or justice and are not the way we make progress in this conflict. It's a choice of the Palestinians to not engage (and sure of the Israeli government as well) after they sabotaged the Oslo accords (and by they I mean Hamas mostly, who are, Palestinians).

nsguy 3y ago

You can criticize Israel all you want without making it a blood libel. As I said, that is not a problem. I will accuse people of blood libel when part of their strategy is the intentional misuse of language to intentionally deceive and misrepresent reality or if they spread lies. If you don't like it, don't do it. You may or may not be right about the international law usage, the question is whether the person on the street understands it as such and whether you have clarified it enough that they can understand what you're talking about. This Palestine you're referring to, is that a country? What are its UN recognized borders? What does it even mean "if you practice apartheid in Palestine"? You're seriously telling me that there's more convincing evidence that Israel broke international laws than that China, or Yemen, or Syria, or Russia, or the US, or the UK, (EDIT: this list is endless but I can add to it) broke international laws? So I'll pick the "conspiracy against Israel" (or more like politics of the not free world mixed with antisemitism) until you can show me how the UN is indeed treating everyone with no bias. EDIT: Also note this is not the same as claiming that Israel broke no international laws, though I think in the specific cases you're referring to it does not. EDIT: "Israel is a modern state which deserves the scrutiny we give other states" -> totally agree. EDIT2: Even Israelis don't understand "apartheid state" to mean what you think it means. So basically nobody understands the way you put it other then maybe some international law experts (including myself honestly, I'd have to spend time reading international law). But for the purpose of our "blood libel" topic if you say "I claim Israel practices apartheid within the occupied territories of the west bank that remain under their control, not like the south african apartheid which is how this word is commonly understood, but the crime of apartheid as defined by international law XXXX" then maybe it's something we can have an intelligent debate about and I won't automatically label it as "blood libel" like I would the generic usage of "apartheid state" without any other qualifiers. EDIT3: "> "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 would need to read more details about the "inhumane acts" but it's worth pointing out that a) Israelis are not a racial group. Palestinians are also not a racial group. b) The Oslo agreements, the withdrawal from Gaza, and other peace efforts are proof that there's no "intention of maintaining that regime". Mostly it's the Palestinians that are intent on maintaining the regime. Again, I'm not going to deny what's going on in the west bank between (mostly Jewish) settlers and (mostly Arab) Palestinians but the UN/ICJ processes are just a political circus with no fairness or justice and are not the way we make progress in this conflict. It's a choice of the Palestinians to not engage (and sure of the Israeli government as well) after they sabotaged the Oslo accords (and by they I mean Hamas mostly, who are, Palestinians).