Definitions within the Israeli palestine issue

[iolo]

Like their Great Model, the Nazis occupying Palestine have NO argument - just murder.

 

[Boston1]

Oh I didn't say no one is using incorrect terminology, just that its incorrect.

Oh and the term belligerent is used in reference to both the aggressor and the defender. Yet the two forms of action carry with them entirely different legal obligations.

Think of many of these incorrect uses of terms as an error in favor of simplicity or convenience.

The interesting thing is that this case wasn't about IF the fence should be built, but a few relatively minor changes in its rout. Interesting read.

Quote
The Scope of Judicial Review


45. Before we examine the proportionality of the route of the separation fence, it is appropriate that we define the character of our examination. Our point of departure is the assumption, which petitioners did not manage to negate, that the government decision to construct the separation fence is motivated by security, and not a political, considerations. As such, we work under the assumption – which the petitioners also did not succeed in negating – that the considerations of the military commander based the route of the fence on military considerations that, to the best of his knowledge, are capable of realizing this security objective. In addition, we assume – and this issue was not even disputed in the case before us – that the military commander is of the opinion that the injury to local inhabitants is proportionate. On the basis of this factual foundation, there are two questions before us. The first question is whether the route of the separation fence, as determined by the military commander, is well-founded from a military standpoint. Is there another route for the separation fence which better achieves the security objective? This constitutes a central component of proportionality. If the chosen route is not well-founded from the military standpoint, then there is no rational connection between the objective which the fence is intended to achieve and the chosen route (the first subtest); if there is a route which better achieves the objective, we must examine whether this alternative route inflicts a lesser injury (the second subtest). The second question is whether the route of the fence is proportionate. Both these questions are important for the examination of proportionality. However, they also raise separate problems regarding the scope of judicial review. My colleague Justice M. Cheshin has correctly noted:


Different subjects require, in and of themselves, different methods of intervention. Indeed, acts of state and acts of war do not change their character just because they are subject to the review of the judiciary, and the character of the acts, according to the nature of things, imprints its mark on the methods of intervention.

56. From a military standpoint, there is a dispute between experts regarding the route that will realize the security objective.As we have noted, this places a heavy burden on petitioners, who ask that we prefer the opinion of the experts of the Council for Peace and Security over the approach of the military commander. The petitioners have not carried this burden.We cannot – as those who are not experts in military affairs – determine whether military considerations justify laying the separation fence north of Jebel Muktam (as per the stance of the military commander) or whether there is no need for the separation fence to include it (as per the stance of petitioners’ and the Council for Peace and Security).Thus, we cannot take any position regarding whether the considerations of the military commander, who wishes to hold topographically controlling hills and thus prevent “flat-trajectory” fire, are correct, militarily speaking, or not. In this state of affairs, there is no justification for our interference in the route of the separation fence from a military perspective.

86. Our task is difficult. We are members of Israeli society. Although we are sometimes in an ivory tower, that tower is in the heart of Jerusalem, which is not infrequently hit by ruthless terror. We are aware of the killing and destruction wrought by the terror against the state and its citizens. As any other Israelis, we too recognize the need to defend the country and its citizens against the wounds inflicted by terror. We are aware that in the short term, this judgment will not make the state’s struggle against those rising up against it easier. But we are judges. When we sit in judgment, we are subject to judgment. We act according to our best conscience and understanding. Regarding the state’s struggle against the terror that rises up against it, we are convinced that at the end of the day, a struggle according to the law will strengthen her power and her spirit. There is no security without law. Satisfying the provisions of the law is an aspect of national security. I discussed this point in HCJ 5100/94 The Public Committee against Torture in Israel v. The Government of Israel, at 845:


We are aware that this decision does make it easier to deal with that reality. This is the destiny of a democracy—she does not see all means as acceptable, and the ways of her enemies are not always open before her. A democracy must sometimes fight with one arm tied behind her back. Even so, a democracy has the upper hand. The rule of law and individual liberties constitute an important aspect of her security stance. At the end of the day, they strengthen her spirit and this strength allows her to overcome her difficulties.


That goes for this case as well. Only a separation fence built on a base of law will grant security to the state and its citizens. Only a separation route based on the path of law, will lead the state to the security so yearned for.


The result is that we reject the petition against order no. Tav/105/03. We accept the petition against orders Tav/104/03, Tav/103/03, Tav/84/03 (western part), Tav/107/03, Tav/108/03, Tav/109/03, and Tav/110/03 (to the extent that it applies to the lands of Beit Daku), meaning that these orders are nullified, since their injury to the local inhabitants is disproportionate.


Respondents will pay 20,000 NIS in petitioners’ costs.


End Quote.


Mod Edit
Boston1 you need to link to the source, and only post a portion of the article. Please provide a link.

 

[fanger]

Agenda Setting
The person who sets the agenda will usually win the debate. Reactivity forces Israel activists to be constantly on the defensive ("no, Israel is not all that bad"). However, by setting the agenda, Israel activists get to determine what to talk about, and can therefore discuss the things they feel help promote the pro-Israel message.
Page 16 Hasbara Handbook File:Hasbara Handbook.pdf - Wikispooks

 

[Boston1]

Apartheid

Quote

a·part·heid
əˈpärtˌ(h)āt,əˈpärtˌ(h)īt/
noun
historical

1. (in South Africa) a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on grounds of race.
   • segregation on grounds other than race.
     "sexual apartheid"
     
     End Quote
     
     
     Is Israel an Apartheid State?
2. Quote ;--)
   • Even before the State of Israel was established, Jewish leaders consciously sought to avoid the situation that prevailed in South Africa.
     
     As David Ben-Gurion told Palestinian nationalist Musa Alami in 1934:
     
     "We do not want to create a situation like that which exists in South Africa, where the whites are the owners and rulers, and the blacks are the workers. If we do not do all kinds of work, easy and hard, skilled and unskilled, if we become merely landlords, then this will not be our homeland."
     (Shabtai Teveth, Ben-Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs: From Peace to War, London: Oxford University Press, 1985, p. 140).
     Since the UN Conference on Racism in August 2001, anti-Semites have tried to delegitimize Israel by calling it an apartheid state in the hope that this false equation will tarnish Israel's image and encourage sanctions and divestment of Israel.
     
     The comparison, however, between Israel and apartheid South Africa is malicious and insults those who suffered under the real apartheid.
     
     The term apartheid refers to official government policy of racial segregation that was formerly practiced in South Africa. Whites sought to dominate the non-white population, especially the indigenous blacks, and discriminated against people of color in the political, legal and economic sectors:
     • Whites and non-whites lived in separate regions of the country;
     • Non-whites were prohibited from running businesses or professional practices in white areas without permits;
     • Non-whites had separate amenities such as beaches, buses, schools, benches, drinking fountains, restrooms;
     • Non-whites received inferior education, medical care and other public services;
     • and, non-whites could not vote or become citizens.
     Today, Jews are the majority within Israel, but the non-Jewish minority (Arab, Christians, Bedouin, Druze, Baha'i and others) enjoy full citizenship with voting rights and representation in the government. Israel’s Declaration of Independence even specifically calls upon the Arab inhabitants of Israel to “participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.” The Arab minority comprises 20% of Israel's population.
     
     It is illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of race and Arab citizens of Israel are represented in all walks of Israeli life. Arabs have served in senior diplomatic and government positions and an Arab - Salim Joubran - currently serves as a justice on the Supreme Court.
     
     Israeli Arabs have their own political parties and representation in the Knesset; Arabs are also members of the major Israeli political parties.

Mod Edit - please don't quote entire article, quote a portion of it, and then add the link. Remainder of article can be found here: Is Israel an Apartheid State? | Jewish Virtual Library

 

[montelatici]

Apartheid

Quote

a·part·heid
əˈpärtˌ(h)āt,əˈpärtˌ(h)īt/
noun
historical

1. (in South Africa) a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on grounds of race.
   • segregation on grounds other than race.
     "sexual apartheid"
     
     End Quote
     
     
     Is Israel an Apartheid State?
2. Quote ;--)
   • Even before the State of Israel was established, Jewish leaders consciously sought to avoid the situation that prevailed in South Africa.
     
     As David Ben-Gurion told Palestinian nationalist Musa Alami in 1934:
     
     "We do not want to create a situation like that which exists in South Africa, where the whites are the owners and rulers, and the blacks are the workers. If we do not do all kinds of work, easy and hard, skilled and unskilled, if we become merely landlords, then this will not be our homeland."
     (Shabtai Teveth, Ben-Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs: From Peace to War, London: Oxford University Press, 1985, p. 140).
     Since the UN Conference on Racism in August 2001, anti-Semites have tried to delegitimize Israel by calling it an apartheid state in the hope that this false equation will tarnish Israel's image and encourage sanctions and divestment of Israel.
     
     The comparison, however, between Israel and apartheid South Africa is malicious and insults those who suffered under the real apartheid.
     
     The term apartheid refers to official government policy of racial segregation that was formerly practiced in South Africa. Whites sought to dominate the non-white population, especially the indigenous blacks, and discriminated against people of color in the political, legal and economic sectors:
     • Whites and non-whites lived in separate regions of the country;
     • Non-whites were prohibited from running businesses or professional practices in white areas without permits;
     • Non-whites had separate amenities such as beaches, buses, schools, benches, drinking fountains, restrooms;
     • Non-whites received inferior education, medical care and other public services;
     • and, non-whites could not vote or become citizens.
     Today, Jews are the majority within Israel, but the non-Jewish minority (Arab, Christians, Bedouin, Druze, Baha'i and others) enjoy full citizenship with voting rights and representation in the government. Israel’s Declaration of Independence even specifically calls upon the Arab inhabitants of Israel to “participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.” The Arab minority comprises 20% of Israel's population.
     
     It is illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of race and Arab citizens of Israel are represented in all walks of Israeli life. Arabs have served in senior diplomatic and government positions and an Arab - Salim Joubran - currently serves as a justice on the Supreme Court.
     
     Israeli Arabs have their own political parties and representation in the Knesset; Arabs are also members of the major Israeli political parties.
     
     In apartheid South Africa, laws dictated where Non-whites could live, work and travel and the government imprisoned, and sometimes killed, those who protested against these policies. By contrast, Israel allows freedom of movement, assembly and speech and some of the government’s harshest critics are Arab Knesset members.
     
     Arab students and professors study, research and teach freely at Israeli universities. At Haifa University, for example, approximately 20 percent of the students are Arabs.
     
     Israeli society is not perfect - discrimination and unfairness exist there as it does in every other country. These differences, however, are nothing like the horrors of the apartheid system. Moreover, when inequalities are identified, minorities in Israel have the right to seek redress through the government and the courts, and progress toward equality has been made over the years.
     
     The situation of Palestinians in the territories is different. Many Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip openly refuse to recognize Israel’s right to exist; by contrast, non-whites never sought the destruction of South Africa, only of the apartheid regime.
     
     Unlike South Africa, where restrictions were totally racially motivated, Israel's restrictions in the territories - such as checkpoints and the security fence - was forced by incessant Palestinian terrorism. Israel has consistently demonstrated a willingness, however, to ease restrictions when violence subsides.
     
     Meanwhile, Palestinians from the territories are allowed to work in Israel and receive similar pay and benefits to their Jewish counterparts. They are allowed to attend schools and universities. Palestinians have been given opportunities to run many of their own affairs. None of this was true for South African blacks.
     
     Even such, 98% of the Palestinians in the territories are governed by the rules of the Palestinian Authority, which amazingly do not permit their own resident with freedoms of speech, religion, assembly or other rights taken for granted by Westerners and guaranteed in Israel.
     
     The clearest refutation of the calumny against Israel comes from the Palestinians themselves - when asked what governments they admire most, more than 80 percent of Palestinians consistently choose Israel because they can see up close the thriving democracy in Israel, and the rights the Arab citizens enjoy there.
3. End Quote

I apologize. Israel is not practicing the same sort of Apartheid policy as they practiced in South Africa. I defer to Noam Chomsky.

“In the Occupied Territories, what Israel is doing is much worse than apartheid,” Chomsky says, according to Days of Palestine. “To call it apartheid is a gift to Israel, at least if by ‘apartheid’ you mean South African-style apartheid.

“What is happening in the Occupied Territories is much worse. There is a crucial difference. The South African Nationalists needed the black population. That was their workforce…

“The Israeli relationship to the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories is totally different. They just do not want them. They want them out, or at least in prison.”

He described listening to the American mainstream media, such as CBS, like listening directly to the Israeli propaganda agencies. “It is a shameful moment for US media when it insists on being subservient to the grotesque propaganda agencies of a violent, aggressive state [Israel],” he said.

Chomsky accused the United States of continuing to provide the decisive support for the [Israeli] atrocities against the Palestinians.

“When what is called Israeli jet planes bomb defenceless targets in Gaza, that is US jet planes with Israeli pilots,” he said. “And the same with the high-tech munition and so on and so forth. So this is, again, sadism masked as compassion. Those are the actions.”

 

[fanger]

jewish virtual library is the work of one person
Jason Levine

 

[Boston1]

jewish virtual library is the work of one person
Jason Levine

I'll have to write him a thank you note ;--)

But so what, Noam is also only one person. And one person who clearly does not understand that in a condition of war, imprisoning enemy combatants and persons otherwise deemed enemies of the state is perfectly legal.

 

[Boston1]

From
What is BELLIGERENT? - The Law Dictionary

What is BELLIGERENT?
In international law. A term used to designate either of two nations which are actually in a state of war with each other, as well as their allies actively cooperating; as distinguished from a nation which takes no part in the war and maintains a strict indifference as between the contending parties, called a "neutral."



Law Dictionary: What is BELLIGERENT? definition of BELLIGERENT (Black's Law Dictionary)

This term does not denote or imply which nation declared war on the other or any connotation of right or wrong. Nor does it mean the typical definition which denotes aggression.

See

google
Definition of belligerent
no link provided

bel·lig·er·ent
bəˈlijərənt/
adjective

1. 1.
   hostile and aggressive.
   "a bull-necked, belligerent old man"
   synonyms: hostile, aggressive, threatening, antagonistic, warlike, warmongering, hawkish, pugnacious, bellicose, truculent, confrontational, contentious, militant, combative; More

noun

1. 1.
   a nation or person engaged in war or conflict, as recognized by international law.

Major difference between its use as a noun in international law vs its use as a adjective in lay terminology