What do normal people, think of the Palestinians?

[cnm]

Keerect.

Yup, they know Mandela knew what he was talking about when it came to apartheid.

 

[RoccoR]

cnm, et al,

And how does the Mandela version of "apartheid" in any way apply to the Israeli-Palestine Conflict?

Keerect.

Yup, they know Mandela knew what he was talking about when it came to apartheid.

(COMMENT)

This is just one of several illustrations for which the Arab Palestinians attempt to play the part of the virtual victim.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoshanNair]

Au contraire, my syntax is just fine, given that I was not the one constructing the sentence. Hence, it is incumbent upon you alone to arrange the worlds properly and comprehend.

Final hint: Remove the "think Palestinians" from the aforesaid statement.

I think your final hint gives the lie to your prior excuse. But it is of no moment, I shall make allowances in future.

You go on and do that.

 

[cnm]

cnm, et al,

And how does the Mandela version of "apartheid" in any way apply to the Israeli-Palestine Conflict?

Normal people think that Israel maintains apartheid regimes in the occupied territories.

 

[RoccoR]

cnm, et al,

What is the example of "apartheid regimes in the occupied territories?"

cnm, et al,

And how does the Mandela version of "apartheid" in any way apply to the Israeli-Palestine Conflict?

Normal people think that Israel maintains apartheid regimes in the occupied territories.

v/r
R

 

[cnm]

cnm, et al,

What is the example of "apartheid regimes in the occupied territories?"

Here is a link detailing similarities and differences between South African and Israeli implementation of apartheid policies. It is too long to copy here conveniently but here is one situation, Control of Movement, as an example:

Comparing South African Apartheid to Israeli Apartheid.

Source pdf

Control of Movement

Pass system: In apartheid South Africa, Blacks could be arrested for being in so-called “white areas” outside of Bantustans and townships without government issued“passes.”


Over 600 check points on the West Bank: Areas A, B and C, Separation wall, separate license plates and roads. Jewish/non-Jewish/Arab Identity cards. Palestinians in the OPT have lived as non-citizens under Israeli rule since 1967. Palestinians rely on Israeli-issued “permits” to travel through a system of more than 600 checkpoints within the Occupied Territories. Israeli refusal to issue permits regularly prevents Palestinians from getting to schools, jobs, and even hospitals.

Normal people think that is one of the elements of 'separate hood', apartheid.

 

[Challenger]

Just who is "Sheikh Najih Ibrahim Ibn Abdullah"?

Let me google that for you

Another one who has no idea, I'll ask again, is there anyone who knows just who is, "Sheikh Najih Ibrahim Ibn Abdullah"?

 

[Billo_Really]

Here is a link detailing similarities and differences between South African and Israeli implementation of apartheid policies. It is too long to copy here conveniently but here is one situation, Control of Movement, as an example:

Comparing South African Apartheid to Israeli Apartheid.

Source pdf

Control of Movement

Pass system: In apartheid South Africa, Blacks could be arrested for being in so-called “white areas” outside of Bantustans and townships without government issued“passes.”


Over 600 check points on the West Bank: Areas A, B and C, Separation wall, separate license plates and roads. Jewish/non-Jewish/Arab Identity cards. Palestinians in the OPT have lived as non-citizens under Israeli rule since 1967. Palestinians rely on Israeli-issued “permits” to travel through a system of more than 600 checkpoints within the Occupied Territories. Israeli refusal to issue permits regularly prevents Palestinians from getting to schools, jobs, and even hospitals.

Normal people think that is one of the elements of 'separate hood', apartheid.

That's one of the reasons I think Zionists are major assholes!

 

[cnm]

That's one of the reasons I think Zionists are major assholes!

They have a fair few blind spots all right.

 

[Mindful]

How to boycott Israel.


Boycott Israel for Dummies - The Full Guide Edition - JewFacts

 

[cnm]

What on earth has that to do with what normal people think of the Palestinians?

 

[RoccoR]

cnm, et al,

• 
  "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;
  SOURCE: Part II - Article 7 - Para 2h - Crimes against humanity - International Criminal Court (ICC)

UN Security Council Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories;
SOURCE: S/RES/446 (1979)​

• 
  Art. 42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. SOURCE: Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907.

• 
  Art. 43. The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country. The Hague, 18 October 1907.

A consensus developed quickly among the experts about the nature of the authority to be exercised by the occupying power. The experts agreed that “authority” should refer to the notion of governmental functions since occupation had to do with political direction of the territory concerned and could not be enforced by anything short of governmental control. SOURCE: ICRC Occupation and Other Forms of Administration of Foreign Territory Report prepared and edited by Tristan Ferraro Legal Adviser, ICRC​

A majority of participants concluded very quickly that the presence of foreign armed forces in a disputed area was a prerequisite for the establishment of an occupation. However, one expert took a more nuanced approach, arguing that if military presence was a condition sine qua non for the establishment of an occupation, it would not necessarily be one for maintaining an occupation. The expert stressed that effective control, once it was established, could – to some degree – be exerted remotely. This view was challenged on the basis that the maintenance of an occupation would still necessitate a military presence on the ground, as an expression of continued effective control over the territory in question. Therefore, according to most of the experts, occupation could not be established or maintained solely through power exercised from beyond the boundaries of the occupied territory; it required a certain number of foreign boots on the ground, as it were. SOURCE: ICRC Occupation and Other Forms of Administration of Foreign Territory Report prepared and edited by Tristan Ferraro Legal Adviser, ICRC​

The expert cited the situation in the Gaza Strip as an example. He said that continuing to refer to it as the occupying power in the Gaza Strip would compel Israel, in order to fulfil its duties under the law of occupation, to re-assume a military presence in the area. According to the expert, an artificial legal construction that would lead to maintaining a state of occupation where effective control had been concretely relinquished could only weaken the case for occupation law. In fact, the so-called occupying power would be put in the position of not being able to fulfil its duties under occupation law unless it re-deployed its troops and re-established its military authority over the foreign territory. Ultimately, such a scenario might have adverse consequences for civilians in the territory in question, since it would require the undertaking of a significant military operation that might be potentially damaging to them. SOURCE: ICRC Occupation and Other Forms of Administration of Foreign Territory Report prepared and edited by Tristan Ferraro Legal Adviser, ICRC​

Implementing Article 43 of the Hague Regulations, which has always been regarded as the central provision of occupation law, remains difficult, operationally and legally. As recent occupations have shown, regulating the use of force in response to civil unrest and ongoing armed opposition is not a clear-cut matter. Although the occupier is required to ensure security by means of law enforcement, a great deal of uncertainty remains about the legal regimes applicable in situations where it is difficult to distinguish hostilities from civil unrest or where the occupying power is confronted by both at the same time in parts of, or the entire, occupied territory. Although they entrust the occupying power with the important task of maintaining public order and safety, and although they also recognize the occupying power’s right to carry out military operations in parallel, the Hague Regulations and the Fourth Geneva Convention do not spell out when and how force may be used in occupied territory. In fact, occupation law is silent on the separation and interaction between law enforcement measures and the use of military force under the ‘conduct-of-hostilities’ model. And it gives no concrete direction for confronting resistance movements and other armed opposition militarily. In fact, occupation law leaves unresolved a number of issues related to the identification of the legal regime(s) governing the use of force in occupied territory. This inevitably permits various interpretations to be made regarding the use of force: how that may be done, in what circumstances and under which body of law. Ultimately, this uncertainty about the legal regime applicable might affect the protection afforded to the local population. SOURCE: ICRC Occupation and Other Forms of Administration of Foreign Territory Report prepared and edited by Tristan Ferraro Legal Adviser, ICRC​

cnm, et al,

What is the example of "apartheid regimes in the occupied territories?"

Here is a link detailing similarities and differences between South African and Israeli implementation of apartheid policies. It is too long to copy here conveniently but here is one situation, Control of Movement, as an example:

Comparing South African Apartheid to Israeli Apartheid.

Source pdf

Control of Movement

Pass system: In apartheid South Africa, Blacks could be arrested for being in so-called “white areas” outside of Bantustans and townships without government issued“passes.”

Over 600 check points on the West Bank: Areas A, B and C, Separation wall, separate license plates and roads. Jewish/non-Jewish/Arab Identity cards. Palestinians in the OPT have lived as non-citizens under Israeli rule since 1967. Palestinians rely on Israeli-issued “permits” to travel through a system of more than 600 checkpoints within the Occupied Territories. Israeli refusal to issue permits regularly prevents Palestinians from getting to schools, jobs, and even hospitals.

Normal people think that is one of the elements of 'separate hood', apartheid.

(COMMENT)

The 1907 Hague Regulation (THR)
The Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV)
International Humanitarian Law (IHL)

I thought I would give you some taste, a heads-up (if you please), on the direction and concepts I apply when answering you directly.

First, the control and administration of Areas A, B and C are stipulated by the Palestinians in the Oslo Accords. There is a specific process in the Oslo Accords for dipute resolution and the continuation of negations on the matter of settlements and alike. Remembering, that the Oslo Accords are a negotiated agreement between the two parties and not, as in South African "Apartheid" a matter of force imposition. [See Post #10 - the-israeli-right-wing]

But on the matter of imposition, you can see that there is a huge difference between the Occupation Law applied in Foreign Occupied Territory, and the domestic law applied to "Apartheid" people and territory with the same sovereignty.

Third, there is a huge difference between the application of IHL in an attempt to meet the

THE THRESHOLD QUESTION: “EFFECTIVE CONTROL”

The term “effective control”2 is a notion developed in the current legal discourse concerning occupation to describe one important element of determining the beginning of occupation. It is not used in a treaty. The only treaty definition is that of Articles 42 and 43 of the Hague Regulations.

The Fourth Geneva Convention does not contain a definition of its own. It must be assumed that it refers to the Hague Regulations that constitute customary law. The latter use the term “authority”:

“Article 42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation applies only to the territory where such authority is established, and in a position to assert itself.​

Article 43. The authority of the legitimate power having actually passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall …”
​

Under Article 43 THR, the occupying power has an obligation to provide – to the best of its ability – security in occupied territory by maintaining public order, quelling riots and disturbances, and enforcing the law against criminal acts. Thus, besides enforcing its military authority, the occupying power is required by occupation law to exercise police powers in the territory under its effective control. (Note: Israel cannot meet that threshold in the Gaza Strip - therefore, it is not "occupied;" presence of foreign armed forces in a disputed area was a prerequisite for the establishment of an occupation.) The West Bank has varying degrees of control by the Israelis.

Effective control is by the Israelis is to accomplish this mandate by THR and the UN Security Council. The separation between the various elements of the Occupation Power is to the best of their ability, to take those reasonable precautions allowable by Occupation Law to prevent the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) from inflicting harm on the Occupation Power. The Palestinians have the distinction in history of producing more terrorist group then any other single country. It is not "Apartheid" but the need and mandate to maintain an environment, to the extent possible, free of HoAP elements that are involved in Jihadist, Arm Struggle and violent acts that are intended to create fear; are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal; and deliberately target or have a disregard for the safety of non-combatants.

In fact,occupation law is silent on the separation and interaction between law enforcement measures and the use of military force under the ‘conduct-of-hostilities’ model. And it gives no concrete direction for confronting resistance movements and other armed opposition militarily. In fact, occupation law leaves unresolved a number of issues related to the identification of the legal regime(s) governing the use of force in occupied territory. This inevitably permits various interpretations to be made regarding the use of force: how that may be done, in what circumstances and under which body of law.
​

Nothing in the IHL makes any of the following unlawful or illegal in any way, shape or form:

• 
  
  
  • Separation wall: Separates HoAP from potential targets.
  • Separate license plates and roads: Identifies potential VBIEDs and separates them from potential targets.
  • Jewish/non-Jewish/Arab Identity cards: Separates Israelis from HoAP
  • Palestinians in the OPT have lived as non-citizens under Israeli rule since 1967: Wrong --- They are citizens of the State of Palestine, and formerly Jordanian Citizens.
  • Palestinians rely on Israeli-issued “permits” to travel through a system of more than 600 checkpoints within the Occupied Territories: I'm not sure that 600 checkpoints is enough to detect and neutralize HoAP.
  • Israeli refusal to issue permits regularly prevents Palestinians from getting to schools, jobs, and even hospitals: How unfortunate!

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[cnm]

I scrolled past that so fast I didn't have time to read it except for the bottom bit, mind posting it again?

How unfortunate!
Most Respectfully,

Hmmm, Normal people think Israel laughs at the misfortunes of Palestinians.

So normal people think Palestinians

live under apartheid regimes,
have their opinions suppressed,
live under military rule in occupied territories,
have their land and property appropriated by Israel,
are cast as uncaring,
have their misfortunes laughed at by Israel.

Starting to get somewhere now.

 

[Mindful]

Au contraire, my syntax is just fine, given that I was not the one constructing the sentence. Hence, it is incumbent upon you alone to arrange the worlds properly and comprehend.

Final hint: Remove the "think Palestinians" from the aforesaid statement.

I think your final hint gives the lie to your prior excuse. But it is of no moment, I shall make allowances in future.

You go on and do that.

Is there a way of getting that trolling oaf tossed into the garbage? Not to be recycled.

 

[cnm]

Chill. Roshannair's not that bad, a little misguided is all. Don't be so intolerant. Even though she might be trolling and her syntax may be a bit weak she's quite within her rights to note what normal people think of Palestinians. You could take note of her example.

For instance you could say something like 'Normal people think Palestinians still hold the keys and deeds to property other people are living in'.

How could I not have included that before?

So normal people think Palestinians

live under apartheid regimes,
have their opinions suppressed,
live under military rule in occupied territories,
have their land and property appropriated by Israel,
are cast as uncaring,
have their misfortunes laughed at by Israel,
still hold the keys and deeds to property other people are living in.

That was remiss of me.

 

[teddyearp]

Ah, thank you. I now know that you are another master like other pro-Palis at deflection and cherry picking. You refuse to answer my original question.

First you ignore what I say, (you don't even read the cite), then you insist I answer your interpretation of what I didn't say while still ignoring what I say. Must be an Israel apologist.

And another cherry pick of what I wrote. You obviously didn't read my whole post. Just what you wanted to believe of me. Must be a Palestinian propagandist.

 

[High_Gravity]

Most Americans are pro Israel, and consider Palestinians a bunch of terrorists:

Americans' sympathies lean heavily toward the Israelis over the Palestinians, 64% vs. 12%. Americans' partiality for Israel has consistently exceeded 60% since 2010; however, today's 64% ties the highest Gallup has recorded in a quarter century, last seen in 1991 during the Gulf War. At that time, slightly fewer than today, 7%, sympathized more with the Palestinians.

The results are similar to what Gallup measured 12 years ago during another period of heightened Israeli-Palestinian violence, and they are consistent with Americans' generally more positive views of the Israelis than of the Palestinians.

Let us not forget:

After the way they treated the Kuwaitis after Iraq invaded Kuwait I don't trust them, they sided with Saddam after Kuwait gave them free housing, education, medical care and jobs for decades. If they treated the Kuwaitis like dogs after that I have no use for them. They are too desperate and cannot be trusted.

 

[teddyearp]

Comparing South African Apartheid to Israeli Apartheid.

Source pdf

I like the very first line:

Israeli Apartheid and South African Apartheid are not exactly the same thing

since you taught me so well how to cherry pick. Your own document claims it is an apples and oranges thing. On the very first opening statement.

 

[teddyearp]

I scrolled past that so fast I didn't have time to read it except for the bottom bit, mind posting it again?

And this from the guy who expects us to hang on his every word posted.

 

[rhodescholar]

What on earth has that to do with what normal people think of the Palestinians?

Normal people don't think, they KNOW the arabs who call themselves palestinians are shit, the bottom of humanity with no legitimate claims - eternal whiners and false victims whose sole existence is to attack and murder jews. If every jew left israel today, the animal arab muslims would still not be able to form a functioning country - have arabs done that anywhere? - and given how they have been expelled from many of the arab world's other countries it is for good reason they are detested.