Dual system of law = Apartheid


By rushkin
December 23, 2011
Share

Dual system of law

Although settlers in the Occupied Territories live in an area that is subject to military rule, and despite the fact that the settlements have not been formally annexed, Israel has applied a substantial part of Israeli law to the settlers. As a result, Israeli civilians living in the Occupied Territories are not subject to military or local law, as are the Palestinians, but are prosecuted according to the Israeli penal law.

The Emergency Regulations (Offenses in the Occupied Territories – Jurisdiction and Legal Assistance), 5727-1967, enacted by the Minister of Defense in July 1967, provided that Israeli civilians who have committed offenses in the Occupied Territories can be tried also in Israeli civil courts. This created extra-territorial personal status for Israeli civilians in the Occupied Territories. Since then, the Knesset has regularly extended these regulations.

Being subject to the Israeli judicial system, settlers enjoy liberties and legal guarantees that are denied Palestinian defendants in the Occupied Territories charged with the same offense. The authority to arrest an individual, the maximum period of detention before being brought before a judge, the right to meet with an attorney, the protections available to defendants at trial, the maximum punishment allowed by law, and the release of prisoners before completion of their sentence – all of these differ greatly in the two systems of law, with the Israeli system providing the suspect and defendant with many more protections.

Thus, different legal systems are applied to two populations residing in the same area, and the nationality of the individual determines the system and court in which he or she is tried. This situation violates the principle of equality before the law, especially given the disparity between the two systems. It also violates the principle of territoriality, conventional in modern legal approaches, according to which a single system of law must apply to all persons living in the same territory.

All persons suspected of committing an offense in the Occupied Territories must stand trial according to the same judicial system and the same laws, irrespective of their ethnic identity. The application of Israeli criminal law solely to Israeli civilians and non-Israeli Jews must be abolished. In accordance with international law, as long as Israel continues to control these territories, military justice and local law must apply to everyone who breaks the law in the Occupied Territories, while protecting human rights.

COMMENTS

happygoldfish

Fri, 12/23/2011 - 16:19

Rate this:

0 points

that text is from b'tselem, at http://www.btselem.org/settler_violence/dual_legal_system

but b'tselem don't call it apartheid (as in your blog-title "Dual system of law = Apartheid")

not everything you don't like about israel is apartheid!

(btw, b'tselem has used "apartheid", when referring to the "forbidden road regime", see eg http://www.btselem.org/download/200408_forbidden_roads_eng.pdf)


Real Real Zionist

Fri, 12/23/2011 - 16:51

Rate this:

0 points

No not everything but dual legal systems are.

Seperate development geddit ?


Advis3r

Mon, 12/26/2011 - 09:47

Rate this:

0 points

This is post is behind the times see:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/world/middleeast/netanyahu-sets-new-cu...
no pun intended.

So PPJ your point now is?


Real Real Zionist

Mon, 12/26/2011 - 11:07

Rate this:

0 points

Jose, can I borrow your brain? I'm building an idiot.


Advis3r

Mon, 12/26/2011 - 11:12

Rate this:

0 points

As I said intelligence was never your strong suit - post your nonsense and call me another poster with whom I have no connection whatsoever all day long for all I care, it reflects adversely on you not me. In the meantime my comment still stands.


happygoldfish

Tue, 12/27/2011 - 12:57

Rate this:

0 points

Advis3r: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/world/middleeast/netanyahu-sets-new-curbs-on-violent-settlers-in-israel.html

rrz, you should be pleased by that article, since it seems that netanyahu has heard rushkin's cry, and has eliminated the very discrimination (the separate legal systems) his blog is complaining about!

“One of the criticisms of Israel is that there are two systems of law in the West Bank, one for Palestinians and a second for Israelis,” Mr. Regev said. “Now rioters from both will be tried under the same system.”

Other steps announced include granting soldiers the power of arrest, currently held only by the police …

Real Real Zionist: No not everything but dual legal systems are.
Seperate development geddit ?

apartheid is a system, not just one item

saying "if there are separate judicial systems, that must be apartheid" is as wrong as "if there are elections, that must be democracy"!

apartheid was a mixture of things … separate land areas (with the best land for the whites) … separate hospitals and doctors and nurses (with the best-equipped or best-trained for the whites) … pass-laws criminalising the non-carrying of identity cards … an economic system in which one race relied on the work of another race … etc

in any other country, separate judicial systems might be called "racial discriminaton", but not "apartheid"

"apartheid" is a word reserved for israel


Real Real Zionist

Tue, 12/27/2011 - 15:09

Rate this:

0 points

How thick is my sugar coat.

First of all, these sanctions and powers have not been extended to the growing number of Jewish extremists/terrorists. Bibi has merely talked of them being so. Get Mr. Sarkozy on the phone.

Secondly, what is in effect Marshall law, would apply only to Jews engaging in neo-terrorist activities. The jurisdiction of the military extends to EVERY Palestinian in the West Bank.

Thirdly, "apartheid" is a concept. Not my concept, or your concept, but THE concept. Literally, "separate development" in order for a state of affairs to be legitimately described as an apartheid system, it does not exactly have to fit the South African model.


Advis3r

Tue, 12/27/2011 - 16:22

Rate this:

0 points

So according to you for example separate faith schools in the UK are a manifestation of apartheid. However you are completely wrong Apartheid is not a concept which you can change to suit your agenda it has been legally defined. The crime of apartheid is defined by the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as inhumane acts of a character similar to other crimes against humanity "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." It is therefore impossible for the crime of apartheid to apply in the context of the Arab/Israeli conflict or Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria. Perhaps you would like to define the difference in race between an Arab and a Jew who were both born say in Tusinia.


Real Real Zionist

Tue, 12/27/2011 - 16:42

Rate this:

0 points

Fits the situation in the west bank perfectly


Real Real Zionist

Tue, 12/27/2011 - 16:49

Rate this:

0 points

One is an Arab and the other is a Jew.

Dear God.


Real Real Zionist

Tue, 12/27/2011 - 17:05

Rate this:

0 points

Goldfish can you name me a country in which there are separate judicial systems for different ethnic groups and this state of affairs is not part of a a wider system of separate development ?


happygoldfish

Tue, 12/27/2011 - 17:47

Rate this:

0 points

Real Real Zionist: Goldfish can you name me a country in which there are separate judicial systems for different ethnic groups and this state of affairs is not part of a a wider system of separate development ?

uhh? one obvious example is Nigeria, where (in some states) muslims and non-muslims are dealt with in separate criminal courts

is there apartheid in Nigeria?


Real Real Zionist

Tue, 12/27/2011 - 18:01

Rate this:

0 points

I don't know enough about Nigeria to answer your question.

However, in the West Bank, the separate development is sufficiently systematic and pervasive to merit the use of the word apartheid. Separate legal systems, separate roads, separate buses, separate treatments at check points, different standards of proof, etc., etc., etc.


happygoldfish

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 11:19

Rate this:

0 points

Real Real Zionist: Goldfish can you name me a country in which there are separate judicial systems for different ethnic groups and this state of affairs is not part of a a wider system of separate development ?

happygoldfish: one obvious example is Nigeria

Real Real Zionist: I don't know enough about Nigeria to answer your question.

oh great!

you ask for examples, but any example i give, you'll say you don't know enough about it (and presumably can't be bothered to find out)

you (wrongly) call "apartheid" something about israel which in any other country you wouldn't call "apartheid" (or, apparently, even be bothered about) …

isn't that a racist use of language?

Goldie G. Tobin

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 11:35

Rate this:

0 points

I saw no more than one example given that RRZ didn't know much about, and he had the courage to say so. Were there others?

You minimize the issues cited because Israel is involved yet would you do the same if it was going on in another country?


happygoldfish

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 12:50

Rate this:

0 points

Goldie G. Tobin: I saw no more than one example given that RRZ didn't know much about,… Were there others?

(i) i only need one example to disprove the "equation" in the blog-title!
(ii) however many examples i give, rrz will say he doesn't know! (and presumably can't be bothered to find out)

Goldie G. Tobin: … and he had the courage to say so …

goldie, thankyou for having the courage to put your head over the parapet and come to help rrz

do you accept that nigeria (in some states) has separate criminal courts for muslims and non-muslims?

and, do you think there is apartheid in nigeria?

Goldie G. Tobin: You minimize the issues cited …

uhh? i didn't minimise anything (except to say that it doesn't "= apartheid")

whatever are you referring to?


Advis3r

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 13:39

Rate this:

0 points

RRZ or should I say PPJ you obviously have no clue - a Jew does not belong to a separate race from an Arab both belong to the semitic race. The term Semite means a member of any of various ancient and modern Semitic-speaking peoples originating in southwestern Asia, including; Akkadians (Assyrians and Babylonians), Eblaites, Ugarites, Canaanites, Phoenicians (including Carthaginians), Hebrews (Israelites, Judeans and Samaritans), Ahlamu, Arameans, Chaldeans, Amorites, Moabites, Edomites, Hyksos, Arabs, Nabateans, Maganites, Shebans, Sutu, Ubarites, Dilmunites, Maltese, Mandeans, Sabians, Syriacs and Ethiopian Semites.
Although that was not the view of the German National Socialist Party of which Hitler was the leader who classed Jews as a separate race.

Hence for this reason among many others Israel is not committing the crime of apartheid.

Goldfish good luck arguing with Goldie G Tobin.


Goldie G. Tobin

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 13:52

Rate this:

0 points

" rrz will say "

You have a crystal ball?

"(and presumably can't be bothered to find out)"

Presumably: adverb it would seem, probably, likely, apparently, most likely, seemingly, doubtless, on the face of it, in all probability, in all likelihood, doubtlessly. You know this how? Another crystal ball?

"do you accept that nigeria (in some states) has separate criminal courts for muslims and non-muslims?"

You say it does.

"and, do you think there is apartheid in nigeria?"

Of course I do, if in fact, it's true.


Advis3r

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 13:57

Rate this:

0 points

No in Nigeria there is not apartheid the inhabitants of Nigeria are in the main all of one race - there is however religious intolerance .


happygoldfish

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 15:03

Rate this:

0 points

Advis3r: a Jew does not belong to a separate race from an Arab both belong to the semitic race.

oh that's ridiculous … of course they're different races!

(and, incidentally, when you were a london solicitor, you knew perfectly well that uk law regarded them as such)

pretending that israel by definition can't commit racial discrimination, or apartheid, or genocide, against arabs because they're the same race is the sort of arguemt that give the pro-israel cause a bad name

Goldie G. Tobin: " rrz will say " … ?

well, he did last time

Goldie G. Tobin: "(and presumably can't be bothered to find out)"
Presumably: adverb it would seem…

ok, let me change that to: it would seem that he can't be bothered to find out

(this is based on … hmm, let's see … oooh, i know!

on the fact that he hasn't bothered to find out!! )


Advis3r

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 15:42

Rate this:

0 points

Goldfish there is no Jewish race there is a Jewish people and a Jewish religion I suggest you check this. Only the Nazis specified there being a Jewish race. There are Jews from any of the three different races so there are Caucasian Jews, Asian Jews, and Black Jews There are also many Jewish converts from many different races. In this instance I regret you are wrong.
The wholly unsupportable accusation against Israel is not capable of being termed racial discrimination because the Jewish people and the Arabs are both semitic in origin. The claim as disingenuous and indefensible as it is can only be that the Jewish people treat the members of the Arab nation living among them in a prejudical way which is demonstrably untrue.
I did not say because we are the same race is the reason why there can't be apartheid I said it was one of many other reasons because the legal definition of the crime of apartheid is separation etc by reason of race.


happygoldfish

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 16:59

Rate this:

0 points

Advis3r: Goldfish there is no Jewish race there is a Jewish people and a Jewish religion I suggest you check this. …

The … accusation against Israel is not capable of being termed racial discrimination because the Jewish people and the Arabs are both semitic in origin. …

ok, i have made a quick check, and i've found that the adl (see "Israel and Apartheid: The Big Lie", 29/8/05, at http://www.adl.org/Israel/apartheid/apartheid_analogy.asp ) and even Judge Goldstone (see "Israel and the Apartheid Slander", 31/10/11, at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/opinion/israel-and-the-apartheid-sland... ) both manage to defend israel against the apartheid slander without ever bothering to claim that jews (or arabs )aren't a racial group

why do you persist in presenting this bizarre argument??

Advis3r

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 17:11

Rate this:

0 points

I did not make the argument RRZ did - he said Israel is practising apartheid and see his comment at 16:49 on 27 December - there is no racial difference between a Jew or an Arab born in Tunisia however one belongs to the Arab nation and one to the Jewish nation.

Apartheid is defined as "inhumane acts of a character similar to other crimes against humanity committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups.

I was trying to show that his claim is fallacious - excuse me for breathing!


Advis3r

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 17:46

Rate this:

0 points

Apartheid is now a legally defined term
From http://www.enotes.com/apartheid-reference/apartheid/print

The word Apartheid, the Afrikaans word meaning separateness (literally, apartness), was coined during the 1930s by the Stellenbosch-based South African Bureau of Race Relations (SABRA) to denote the separate development of the races living in South Africa. It has subsequently come to be associated with the racial policy implemented by the National Party government of the Republic of South Africa during its rule in the period 1948 to 1994.
Perhaps the best synopsis of the policy of apartheid is to be found in the United Nations International Convention Against Apartheid in Sport of 1985:
Under apartheid, black Africans had to have special permission to enter and remain within urban areas and were required to carry "interior passports" at all times. In this photo, a woman holds up the so-called dom pass. [ALAIN NOGUES/CORBIS SYGMA]
The expression "apartheid" shall mean a system of institutionalized racial segregation and discrimination for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over another racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them, such as pursued by South Africa.
Apartheid, as advocated and practiced in South Africa, was structured on three distinct bases:
• separation of sections of the population along racial lines (segregation);
• exploitation of persons of color for the benefit of a privileged white elite (discrimination); and
• repression of opposition to the policy seeking to implement the above (persecution);
Apartheid does not denote the racist sentiments and practices that linger in the hearts and minds and in the personal conduct of many people living in plural
societies, but is confined to institutionalized racism—that is, racial discrimination imposed by the laws and enforced practices of a political community. Race is here the essential criterion of enforced differentiations in the social, economic, political, and legal structures within an apartheid society. Racial distinctions constitute a particular modality of social reality and must not be confused with those distinctions founded on national, ethnic, or religious grounds. A racial group is conventionally defined on the basis of "the hereditary physical traits often identified with a geographical region, irrespective of linguistic, cultural, national, or religious factors" (Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, para. 513 [September 2, 1998]).

Obviously because you have been proven wrong you reject the evidence that proves you wrong - that concept pervades your postings on this website when faced with the truth you dodge and wriggle. Your reasoning is fallacious and your argument that Israel is committing apartheid is wrong.


Real Real Zionist

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 17:47

Rate this:

0 points

Apartheid is a concept. Not my concept or your concept or the ADL's (koff) concept or Judge Goldstone's concept but THE concept. When we use the word, we in effect judge whether the thing or state of affairs in question, satisfies a weighted majority of the characteristics we normally associate with the concept.

In respect to the concept of apartheid, discriminatory legal systems, because they pervade virtually every other aspect of life, carry considerable, though not necessarily conclusive weight. It is impossible for me to say whether users of the word in general would use the it in connection with Nigeria. All that I know at present is that there is a dual legal system. and you are correct in assuming that I cannot be bothered to find out more. There are a great many things that I want to find out more about and Nigeria is so far down the list I doubt I will ever get to it.

In the West Bank, the discriminatory legal systems are so grotesquely extreme, to the extent that there are even different definitions of childhood. On the one hand, Jews are subject to Israeli civil law and non Jews, to brutal military dictatorship. And that's before we even get to the rest eg: Jew only roads, Jew only buses, discriminatory check point treatment reminiscent of South African pass laws, separate areas reminiscent of the Group Areas Act. In the light of all this, I am confident that the man on the Clapham omnibus would be inclined to calling this apartheid and when he comes to the meaning of words, this man is God, not the ADL, not Judge Goldstone, and not Happy Goldfish.

In any event, it is what it is. If you don't like the word, choose another, but it will still be what it is.


Advis3r

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 17:54

Rate this:

0 points

Apartheid is now a legally defined term
From http://www.enotes.com/apartheid-reference/apartheid/print

The word Apartheid, the Afrikaans word meaning separateness (literally, apartness), was coined during the 1930s by the Stellenbosch-based South African Bureau of Race Relations (SABRA) to denote the separate development of the races living in South Africa. It has subsequently come to be associated with the racial policy implemented by the National Party government of the Republic of South Africa during its rule in the period 1948 to 1994.
Perhaps the best synopsis of the policy of apartheid is to be found in the United Nations International Convention Against Apartheid in Sport of 1985:
Under apartheid, black Africans had to have special permission to enter and remain within urban areas and were required to carry "interior passports" at all times. In this photo, a woman holds up the so-called dom pass. [ALAIN NOGUES/CORBIS SYGMA]
The expression "apartheid" shall mean a system of institutionalized racial segregation and discrimination for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over another racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them, such as pursued by South Africa.
Apartheid, as advocated and practiced in South Africa, was structured on three distinct bases:
• separation of sections of the population along racial lines (segregation);
• exploitation of persons of color for the benefit of a privileged white elite (discrimination); and
• repression of opposition to the policy seeking to implement the above (persecution);
Apartheid does not denote the racist sentiments and practices that linger in the hearts and minds and in the personal conduct of many people living in plural
societies, but is confined to institutionalized racism—that is, racial discrimination imposed by the laws and enforced practices of a political community. Race is here the essential criterion of enforced differentiations in the social, economic, political, and legal structures within an apartheid society.
Racial distinctions constitute a particular modality of social reality and must not be confused with those distinctions founded on national, ethnic, or religious grounds.
A racial group is conventionally defined on the basis of "the hereditary physical traits often identified with a geographical region, irrespective of linguistic, cultural, national, or religious factors" (Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, para. 513 [September 2, 1998]).

Obviously because you have been proven wrong you reject the evidence that proves you wrong - that concept pervades your postings on this website when faced with the truth you dodge and wriggle. Your reasoning is fallacious and your argument that Israel is committing apartheid is wrong.


Advis3r

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 18:15

Rate this:

0 points

"and non Jews, to brutal military dictatorship" - I suppose if you are going to tell a lie make it a big one!

Obviously RRZ has not heard that the the Palestinians administer their own judicial system in Judea and Samaria - he can read all about it right here.

http://www.palst-jp.com/eg/pdf/inv/02/The_Palestinian_Judicial_System.pd...


Mary in Brighton

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 10:21

Rate this:

0 points

Lol

Where was this Palestinian judicial system when Mustafa Tamimi needed it.


happygoldfish

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 12:03

Rate this:

0 points

Advis3r: A racial group is conventionally defined on the basis of "the hereditary physical traits often identified with a geographical region, irrespective of linguistic, cultural, national, or religious factors

yes, but it's wider than that (see http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext-printerfriendly.htm ) …

Group idenity is often imposed by the perpetrators. Perpetrators of genocide frequently make group categories more rigid or create new definintions which impose group identity on individuals, eithout regard to peoples individual choices.

(and of course, until 2005, israeli identity cards actually included racial identity, usually jewish arab druze or circassian … see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teudat_Zehut#Question_of_ethnicity )

Mary in Brighton: Where was this Palestinian judicial system when Mustafa Tamimi needed it.

the palestinian judicial system is a work in progress, see http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/world/palest.htm#Courts

The PA inherited a court system largely based on structures and legal codes predating the 1967 Israeli occupation. During 2001 a new law regarding the formation of the courts took affect, which changed the types or sizes of cases that some of the civil court can conduct. In each district there must be at least one conciliation court and a court of first instance that hears appeals from that conciliation court, and which has original jurisdiction of more serious cases. There is a court of appeals in both Gaza and Ramallah to review decisions of the first instance courts. Until this law took effect, the Courts of Appeal also served as the High Court. The law established one High Court, which will serve as an administrative court and the Constitutional Court until these are formed by law. However, it is not clear how the judiciary plans to manage this transition, since there are limited resources to make these changes to the judiciary. Additionally, it is not clear how or when the changes will take effect, since Article 1 of the law states that the courts are established pursuant to the Judicial Authority law, which has not been implemented.
The PA executive at times does not respect decisions of the High Court, and the Palestinian security agencies do not always enforce its rulings. In 1995 the PA established state security courts in Gaza and the West Bank to try cases involving security issues. Three military judges preside over each court. A senior police official heads the state security court in Jericho, and three judges preside over it. There is no right of appeal, but the PA Chairman reviews the court's findings, and he may confirm or reject the decision. The PA Ministry of Justice has no jurisdiction over the state security courts, which are subordinate only to the Chairman. There is a separate Attorney General appointed by the Chairman to work with the state security courts.
The court system in general is recovering from years of neglect; many of the problems predate PA jurisdiction. Judges and staff lack sufficient resources and suffer from a lack of skills and training. Court procedures and record keeping are antiquated. The delivery of justice often is slow and uneven. The ability of the courts to obtain enforcement of their decisions is extremely weak, and the appeals process is administratively confusing. A heavy caseload even before the Intifada exacerbated these systemic problems. During the year, the revolving caseload reportedly increased by at least 60 percent, because judicial officials rarely could reach the courthouse in time due to Israeli-imposed closures.
The High Judicial Council (HJC) is slowly gaining authority over judicial matters that formerly were administered by the PA Ministry of Justice. In 1998 the Palestinian Legislative Council mandated the creation of the HJC with the goal of enhancing the judicial system and its independence. Arafat approved the establishment of the HJC in 2000. During the year, the HJC planned the budget for the judicial branch, supervised judicial operations in the West Bank and Gaza, and nominated more than 30 new judges for the Chairman's confirmation. Prior to this year, the Ministry of Justice appointed all civil judges for 10-year terms and supervised judicial operations.
The PA's state security courts fail to afford defendants due process. The PA usually ignores the legal limits on the length of pre-arraignment detention of detainees suspected of security offenses. Defendants often are brought to court without knowledge of the charges against them or sufficient time to prepare a defense. They typically are represented by court-appointed lawyers, who generally are members of the security services who have earned valid law degrees, but who had not practiced trial law, or, in some cases, any law, as part of their career. Court sessions often take place on short notice in the middle of the night, and without lawyers present. In some instances, security courts try cases, issue verdicts, and impose sentences in a single session lasting a few hours.
The state security courts adjudicate cases that fall far outside the scope of the courts' original mandate. In addition to cases in which violations of state security allegedly occurred, the courts have on occasion dealt with tax cases and economic crimes, such as smuggling. In 2000 Chairman Arafat decreed that "serious" crimes, including homicide, rape, and drug trafficking, be referred to state security courts. The decision prompted human rights organizations to issue statements requesting the abolition of state security courts and the referral of all cases to the regular civil courts.

Real Real Zionist

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 12:31

Rate this:

0 points

Blah blah blah

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.

LATEST COMMENTS