Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Little Tich

(6,171 posts)
20. In every country except Israel, all civilians in an area are ruled by the same laws.
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 10:40 AM
Jun 2016

For example, a murderer in New York is sentenced in the same courts under the same laws, regardless whether that person happens to be an American or an illegal immigrant. In the occupied territories, there are two different legal systems, one is completely unfair and the other is a normal justice system of a democratic country. That's a clear example of Apartheid when one group is legally discriminated against and have no civil rights.

If the Palestinians in the occupied territories were part of the same legal system like they would be in every other democratic country in the world, that particular part of the Apartheid analogy wouldn't stick. If the Palestinians had equal rights, or even separate but equal rights there would be no basis whatsoever for the Apartheid analogy.

There are of course other reasons for the Apartheid analogy, like the fact that State land in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is for Jewish use only (!) and that Palestinians can't legally access natural resources, including water, which literally prevents all forms of economic growth. The Palestinians aren't allowed to expand existing communities or build new ones, while Israel is building new settlements all the time. There are no circumstances where Israelis and Palestinians have equal rights.

Here's a report from Human Rights Watch about Israel's treatment of Palestinians that doesn't mention the A word:

Separate and Unequal: Israel’s Discriminatory Treatment of Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories
Source: Human Rights Watch, December 19, 2010

This report consists of a series of case studies that compare Israel’s different treatment of Jewish settlements to nearby Palestinian communities throughout the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. It describes the two-tier system of laws, rules, and services that Israel operates for the two populations in areas in the West Bank under its exclusive control, which provide preferential services, development, and benefits for Jewish settlers while imposing harsh conditions on Palestinians. The report highlights Israeli practices the only discernable purposes of which appear to be promoting life in the settlements while in many instances stifling growth in Palestinian communities and even forcibly displacing Palestinian residents. Such different treatment, on the basis of race, ethnicity, and national origin and not narrowly tailored to meet security or other justifiable goals, violates the fundamental prohibition against discrimination under human rights law.


Read more: https://www.hrw.org/report/2010/12/19/separate-and-unequal/israels-discriminatory-treatment-palestinians-occupied
It must really suck to be a country that must past laws to suppress opposition to apartheid. Purveyor Jun 2016 #1
This message was self-deleted by its author Mosby Jun 2016 #2
Spain is passing those laws against BDS. It's because BDS is a hate movement. n/t shira Jun 2016 #3
The current israeli gov't is also, most certainly a "hate movement". eom Purveyor Jun 2016 #4
Well, at least that's progress. You basically conceded... shira Jun 2016 #26
Frustrating for supporters of the bigoted BDS movement King_David Jun 2016 #5
They protecting a Jewish minority against hate. King_David Jun 2016 #6
Ever notice the BDS'ers never speak out against the rising rate of hate.... shira Jun 2016 #7
I'm opposed to Apartheid, so I think the Spanish decision is wrong. Little Tich Jun 2016 #8
Wrong link FBaggins Jun 2016 #9
The existence of Ariel U is in breach of the Fourth Geneva convention which prohibits the transfer Little Tich Jun 2016 #10
Nope FBaggins Jun 2016 #11
The consensus is that the settlements have to go. Little Tich Jun 2016 #12
You have a right to your own opinion, but not your own facts FBaggins Jun 2016 #19
The current location of the settlements is making any Palestinian development and economic growth Little Tich Jun 2016 #22
Your sources are the UN and ACRI (associated with BDS)..... shira Jun 2016 #25
For the sake of argument - do you know of any other studies of the Palestinian economy with Little Tich Jun 2016 #28
Promoting "equal rights" in Israel via a Muslim Arab majority w/Hamas in charge.... shira Jun 2016 #29
4th Geneva refers to Nazis transferring the Jewish population in Europe.... shira Jun 2016 #14
Wikipedia: International law and Israeli settlements Little Tich Jun 2016 #15
The UN? What a joke. Article from today, just one hour ago actually... shira Jun 2016 #17
It's been proven to you that the Apartheid charge is total BS shira Jun 2016 #13
I don't consider your own assertions to be proof enough. Little Tich Jun 2016 #16
My assertions can be backed by fact. Yours can't.... shira Jun 2016 #18
In every country except Israel, all civilians in an area are ruled by the same laws. Little Tich Jun 2016 #20
What country is this occuring in? FBaggins Jun 2016 #21
There are some seriously deluded persons in the Knesset and others living in the West Bank and East Little Tich Jun 2016 #23
It's called occupation, not apartheid. The WB & Gaza aren't Israel. shira Jun 2016 #24
The occupation changed to Apartheid the moment an Israeli civilian moved in to occupied territory Little Tich Jun 2016 #27
"I don't believe that there's Apartheid in Israel either, just discrimination." shira Jun 2016 #30
There's a huge difference between Israel and the occupied territories - Little Tich Jun 2016 #31
Where's that definition of Apartheid? You can't find one that fits for the territories.... shira Jun 2016 #32
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Israel/Palestine»This message was self-del...»Reply #20