What's new

Indonesia Leaders : We Stand With The People of Palestine

You asked me about Apartheid? here are some UN officials who claim that Israel is an Apartheid state.

"
  • Richard Falk, emeritus professor of law at Princeton University and UN special rapporteur 2008-2014, wrote in a report to the UN Human Rights Council that Israel is guilty of racial discrimination, apartheid and torture in its “systematic oppression” of the Palestinian people. (UN document A/HRC/25/67)
  • John Dugard, South African law professor and Falk’s predecessor in the post of UN Special Rapporteur, wrote a detailed study in 2013 on whether the charge of apartheid applies to Israel, concluding: “On the basis of the systemic and institutionalized nature of the racial domination that exists, there are indeed strong grounds to conclude that a system of apartheid has developed in the occupied Palestinian territory. Israeli practices in the occupied territory are not only reminiscent of – and, in some cases, worse than – apartheid as it existed in South Africa, but are in breach of the legal prohibition of apartheid.”
  • The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination censured Israel in 2012 for implementing “two entirely separate legal systems and sets of institutions for Jewish communities grouped in illegal settlements on the one hand and Palestinian populations living in Palestinian towns and villages on the other hand.” The Committee declared itself “particularly appalled at the hermetic character of the separation of two groups, who live on the same territory but do not enjoy either equal use of roads and infrastructure or equal access to basic services and water resources”. It called on Israel to eradicate all policies and practices of “racial segregation and apartheid” affecting the Palestinian people (UN document CERD/C/ISR/CO/14-16).
  • In March 2017, the UN Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) commissioned and published a report called 'Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid' which concludes, "on the basis of overwhelming evidence, that Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid, and urges swift action to oppose and end it." The report also recommends that national governments and civil society actors should support boycott, divestment and sanctions activities in response to Israel's Apartheid regime.
  • In 2019, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) opened an investigation into a formal complaint by Palestinian diplomats on whether Israel has breached the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which it ratified in 1979. Specifically, article 3 of the convention prohibits racial segregation and apartheid.
  • In 2019, current UN Special Rapporteur for the occupied Palestinian territory, Michael Lynk, stated that formal annexation of part of the West Bank “will only confirm a one state reality characterised by a rigid two-tier system of legal and political rights, based on ethnicity and religion. This would meet the international definition of apartheid.” He restated in 2020, in response to Israel’s plans to annex parts of the occupied Palestinian West Bank: "The plan would crystalize a 21st century apartheid, leaving in its wake the demise of the Palestinians‘ right to self-determination. Legally, morally, politically, this is entirely unacceptable... Already, we are witnessing forced evictions and displacement, land confiscation and alienation, settler violence, the appropriation of natural resources, and the imposition of a two-tiered system of unequal political, social and economic rights based on ethnicity." Israel still maintains plans to annex parts of the West Bank.
  • In 2020, 47 UN human rights experts signed a statement saying “Israel has recently promised that it will maintain permanent security control between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River. Thus, the morning after annexation would be the crystallisation of an already unjust reality: two peoples living in the same space, ruled by the same state, but with profoundly unequal rights. This is a vision of a 21st century apartheid”.
Here is also a similar source to the one you provided showing why its an apartheid state.


Your habit ... always only see what you want to see and ignore the others (selective reading & bias) :D

Why dont you read this part of the citation you bring:

The analogy has been debated by scholars and lawyers,[12] United Nations investigators,[13] the African National Congress (ANC),[14] human rights groups[15][16] and by several Israeli former politicians.[17] Israel, its supporters, and a number of scholars reject the comparison.[18][19] Critics of the analogy argue that the comparison is factually and morally inaccurate and intended to delegitimize Israel itself.[20][21] Opponents of the analogy reject the comparison of Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip with apartheid South Africa, arguing that as the two territories are not part of sovereign Israel and governed by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas government in Gaza, they cannot be compared to the internal policies of apartheid South Africa. Proponents compare the enclaves in the occupied territories to the Bantustans set up within South Africa, which were also classified as "self-governing" or "independent".[22][23]

I've told you the analogy of apartheid with Israel barrier case is "very debatable" right?
 
Last edited:
You always bring either Palestine propaganda/rhetoric, or pallywood instead of evidence/objective history :laugh:

This is the content of UN resolution 73/98

View attachment 749666


This is about condeming war activity by both parties, and condemning incitement by some Israel settlers (not army) in "Occupied Palestinian territory (region A & B)".

Don't twist it as if world condemn Israel occupation on region C of West Bank, because Israel occupation on region C is as legal as Palestinian Authority occupation on west bank reg A&B, under "Oslo Accord".

wow wow , did you even read that before posting? read the second paragraph again.

"Condemning also all acts of violence, destruction, harassment, provocation and incitement by Israeli settlers in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, against Palestinian Civilians, including children, and their properties, including historic religious sites, and agricultural lands, as well as acts of terror by several extremists Israeli settlers, and calling for accountability for the illegal action perpetrated in this regard"

Your own source has thrown your whole argument into the gutter.
 
wow wow , did you even read that before posting? read the second paragraph again.

"Condemning also all acts of violence, destruction, harassment, provocation and incitement by Israeli settlers in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, against Palestinian Civilians, including children, and their properties, including historic religious sites, and agricultural lands, as well as acts of terror by several extremists Israeli settlers, and calling for accountability for the illegal action perpetrated in this regard"

Your own source has thrown your whole argument into the gutter.

Key word: "by Israeli settlers", "Occupied Palestinian Territory".

In what way my own source thrown my whole argument? My argument is clear:
This is about condemming war activity by both parties, and condemning incitement by some Israel settlers (not army) in "Occupied Palestinian territory (region A & B)".

If you understand the keyword, you will understand why I am saying the resolution is not about condemning Israel existence and occupation in West Bank (region C).
 
I've told you the analogy of apartheid with Israel barrier case is "very debatable" right?
its not debatable, you need to go read that article again because it gives because it shows arguments from both side to be unbiased, you only copy/pasted few paragraphs of your choice and rejected the rest?
 
its not debatable, you need to go read that article again because it gives because it shows arguments from both side to be unbiased, you only copy/pasted few paragraphs of your choice and rejected the rest?

Really?

Then what is this supposed to mean?

The analogy has been debated by scholars and lawyers,[12] United Nations investigators,[13] the African National Congress (ANC),[14] human rights groups[15][16] and by several Israeli former politicians

Delusion detected. LOL. :lol:
 
Key word: "by Israeli settlers", "Occupied Palestinian Territory".

In what way my own source thrown my whole argument? My argument is clear:
This is about condemming war activity by both parties, and condemning incitement by some Israel settlers (not army) in "Occupied Palestinian territory (region A & B)".

If you understand the keyword, you will understand why I am saying the resolution is not about condemning Israel existence and occupation in West Bank (region C).
that is not the keyword, don't twist the words of that statement. See again you changed your argument, in the beginning your argument was that you are neutral, but we all saw how that turned out to be lol, Secondly you claimed that the land always belonged to the Zionists, that is also not true because Palestinians lived there for thousands of years and only the brits handed it over to the Zionists who aren't even the real Jews who once lived there. Then you claimed Israel is not an apartheid state, i presented you official proof from United nations. Now you are claiming that Israeli settlers are involved in violence and their government has nothing to do with that? i
Really?

Then what is this supposed to mean?

The analogy has been debated by scholars and lawyers,[12] United Nations investigators,[13] the African National Congress (ANC),[14] human rights groups[15][16] and by several Israeli former politicians

Delusion detected. LOL. :lol:
haha well you know that means Israel is an apartheid state why else would they even consider debating about this?
 
btw you didn't answer my question from last night, are you Jewish, Muslim or an atheist?

 
Opponents of the analogy reject the comparison of Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip with apartheid South Africa, arguing that as the two territories are not part of sovereign Israel and governed by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas government in Gaza, they cannot be compared to the internal policies of apartheid South Africa.
Yup, you can oppress others if they are not part of your territory. Perfect argument. Nothing wrong to see.
 
Yup, you can oppress others if they are not part of your territory. Perfect argument. Nothing wrong to see.
don't try it mate, nobody can convince delusional and selfish people. He clearly knows that even Western countries are having hard time siding with Israel these days because of their brutality, but he doesn't think Israel should be blamed for it.
 
don't try it mate, nobody can convince delusional and selfish people. He clearly knows that even Western countries are having hard time siding with Israel these days because of their brutality, but he doesn't think Israel should be blamed for it.

In my time arguing with 6 pro-israel posters is that there's always this universal acknowledgement that what Israel doing to the palestinians is wrong but they just can't help it is the argument. They don't argue on the basis of humanity mind you but because of bad optics. Which kinda tells you about the mindset of the average pro-israels that they spends more time complaining that dead palestinians makes them look bad instead of the act of killing themselves.
 
In my time arguing with 6 pro-israel posters is that there's always this universal acknowledgement that what Israel doing to the palestinians is wrong but they just can't help it is the argument. They don't argue on the basis of humanity mind you but because of bad optics. Which kinda tells you about the mindset of the average pro-israels that they spends more time complaining that dead palestinians makes them look bad instead of the act of killing themselves.
exactly brother, you can read all his previous posts and can see that his only argument is that Palestine was colonized by the British so it was up to them to decide who could settle there. He refuses to acknowledge that most of the world does not accept this occupation and advocates for 2 state solution.
 
Yup, you can oppress others if they are not part of your territory. Perfect argument. Nothing wrong to see.

Since when preventing non citizen cross border = oppressing?

So you mean if US build wall to prevent Mexican cross border US is doing oppression? LOL. what a logic :laugh:
don't try it mate, nobody can convince delusional and selfish people. He clearly knows that even Western countries are having hard time siding with Israel these days because of their brutality, but he doesn't think Israel should be blamed for it.

Your mindset is already consumed with Hamas propaganda. Your statements is not based on reality/fact anymore.
exactly brother, you can read all his previous posts and can see that his only argument is that Palestine was colonized by the British so it was up to them to decide who could settle there. He refuses to acknowledge that most of the world does not accept this occupation and advocates for 2 state solution.

LOL. Why twisting my statement just like you twisting fact? :laugh:
Please stop twisting my statement :)

Read again all my post. I said: it is up to the habitant of the Palestine region, which was: Arab Palestine and Jews Palestine, that was according to UN Charter, thats why UN came with Partition Plan.

Which part is difficult for you to discern? But you keep pushing that it had to be up to Arab Palestine ignoring Jews Palestine right.
 
Last edited:
that is not the keyword, don't twist the words of that statement. See again you changed your argument, in the beginning your argument was that you are neutral, but we all saw how that turned out to be lol,

What do you mean those are not key word? Can't you read those key word on the paragraph? or it is your habit again ignoring word that doesnt fit you? :D

Yes I am neutral, thats why I said: both parties are NOT innocent, Israel commit wrong things too. But you are heavily pro Hamas pushing Hamas propaganda as fact, that what I am arguing now.

Secondly you claimed that the land always belonged to the Zionists, that is also not true because Palestinians lived there for thousands of years and only the brits handed it over to the Zionists who aren't even the real Jews who once lived there. Then you claimed Israel is not an apartheid state, i presented you official proof from United nations. Now you are claiming that Israeli settlers are involved in violence and their government has nothing to do with that? i

I said depends. I repeat again my statements:

if viewed from historical base it belong to Jews as native.

If viewed from UN Charter, it belonged to the people living there (Arab Palestine and Jews Palestine).

haha well you know that means Israel is an apartheid state why else would they even consider debating about this?

LOL. Can't you read/understand this simple statement? why ignoring it?

The analogy has been debated by scholars and lawyers,[12] United Nations investigators,[13] the African National Congress (ANC),[14] human rights groups[15][16] and by several Israeli former politicians

Your apartheid analogy has been debated, but you as usual keep ignoring it, selective reading :)
 
Last edited:
In my time arguing with 6 pro-israel posters is that there's always this universal acknowledgement that what Israel doing to the palestinians is wrong but they just can't help it is the argument. They don't argue on the basis of humanity mind you but because of bad optics. Which kinda tells you about the mindset of the average pro-israels that they spends more time complaining that dead palestinians makes them look bad instead of the act of killing themselves.


This is hypocrite to the core.

I support 2 states solution proposed by UN, as it is based on Humanity and equal human right for independence (UN Charter), and recognize some Israel wrongdoing.

Meanwhile you guys support idea of "getting rid Israel from middle east", and pushing that Palestine region only belong to Arab Palestine, ignoring that Jews also has human right to live and establish country there, ignoring wrongdoing from Palestine side, justifying Hamas' attacking on civilian/using human shield/playing dissinformation etc, but claiming you are defending HUMANITY? LOL. Don't you understand these all are AGAINST humanity? tsk tsk tsk.... :disagree:

@Respect4Respect01 @tower9 @Song Hong @UKBengali @Globenim @Whizzack @Viet @kuge @Indos @nufix @Lego Jangkar
 
Last edited:
PDF getting more pro Jews recently. Few years ago someone will be banned for advocating in favor of Jews, and speaking negatively about Palestinian.

Few years ago, speaking against Sauds is quite dangerous. Now it is a little relax.

Now I still can get ban for speak against Turks.

Also few years many Muslims will bash bash any pro-Israel comment. Today most Musllms dont really care anymore.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom