Dual system of law = Apartheid

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)

No not everything but dual legal systems are.

Seperate development geddit ?

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?

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

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.

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! …

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

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.

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.

Fits the situation in the west bank perfectly

One is an Arab and the other is a Jew.

Dear God.

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 ?

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?

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

" 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.

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

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!! )

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.

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??

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!

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.

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.

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]).

"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...

Lol

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

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 ) …

(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 …

Blah blah blah