Russell Tribunal Accuses Israel Of Apartheid Violations

[Purveyor]

The Russell Tribunal on Palestine (RToP) demanded on Sunday that the ICC investigate crimes against humanity being committed by Israel in the Palestinian occupied territories.

The Russell Tribunal on Palestine, which was created in 2009 to look into the various accountabilities that have led to the continued occupation of the Palestinian Territories and the non-application of UN resolutions, held its fourth hearing in Brussels.

The Tribunal recommended that the UN General Assembly reconstitute the UN Special Committee against Apartheid and convene a special session to consider the question of apartheid against the Palestinian people.

It also called on the UN to examine the nature, consequences and legal status of Israel's prolonged occupation and apartheid.

MORE...

http://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/5519-russell-tribunal-accuses-israel-of-apartheid-violations

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

1. Interesting.

The tribunal heard more than 150 eyewitness and expert accounts, including that of Haneen Zoabi who is a member of Israeli Knesset.

The jurors at the tribunal said that they supported calls by Palestinian civil society for Palestine to take immediate steps to ratify the Rome Statute of the ICC. On its part, the ICC demanded that immediate investigations into the crimes against humanity and war crimes committed commence.

Israel practices numerous crimes against humanity that were referred to by the Tribunal and have been documented by Palestinian and international NGOs and legal experts over many years. This dates back to the Rome Statute which came into force on July 1, 2002.

Change is a coming.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

2. In addition, it must be hard for some to realize that Israel

will have to change with the times instead of continuing to act like some apartheid state out of the last century.

[sabbat hunter]

3. it is a bullshite group

It is a so called "people's tribunal" with no government backing, organization or power. Just like that "people's tribunal" that issued a warrant for the arrest of Pope Francis.


Additionally all the 'evidence' presented was one sided, and the tribunal had a pre-determined outcome, and was only looking for voices that would support that outcome.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

4. Yes, every group that criticizes Israel must be bullshite to supporters of apartheid.

Change is a coming.

[sabbat hunter]

5. IT is bullshit

because it had absolutely no intentions of holding fair hearings, giving all sides equal voices.

Before any hearings were held it already declared that Israel was an apartheid state, only gave a forum to those that support that view. It did not allow any rebuttals or evidence to the contrary.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

6. Oh my god, you make them sound like an Israeli court for Palestinians.

Now that's harsh.


Change is a coming.

[Purveyor]

15. +1, indeed! {{{chuckle}}} eom

[Shaktimaan]

19. Not at all.

But this group, unquestionably, does happen to be total bullshit.

Yes, every group that criticizes Israel must be bullshite to supporters of apartheid.

OBVIOUSLY, the only reasonable thing to assume is that every group which calls for Israel's censure must be legitimate, right? Because that is somehow, logically different than your comment in some way, right?

In your zealous hunt for evidence that supports your predetermined ideas of what this conflict is about, take care that you, yourself don't judge anyone's legitimacy according to their findings as opposed to their methods.

Or does your policy of knee-jerk response ever take into account the possibility that a post you dislike may yet still be entirely true? (No no, I kid... consider that question rhetorical.)

It's theatre: the actors know their parts and the result is known before they start. Israel is to be dragged into the mud.

If anyone is in any doubt, look at the players: almost without exception, everyone has a publicly known - and hostile - stance towards Israel. Their motivations might vary, but the message they pump is the same.

Words like "tribunal", "jury" and "findings" mislead. There will not be any calm and dispassionate consideration of facts and a desire to understand the complexities resulting from history and wars: a quick Google check tells the story, from the naked prejudices of such as Ronnie Kasrils and John Dugard, to Cynthia McKinley, the former US Congress member whose loss of her seat was attributed to her loopy ideas of a Washington role in the 9/11 terrorism.

http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2011/10/30/lies-told-about-israel-are-beyond-belief

Judge Richard Goldstone, writing in The New York Times in October 2011, said of the Russell Tribunal on Palestine that “It is not a ‘tribunal.’ The ‘evidence’ is going to be one-sided and the members of the ‘jury’ are critics whose harsh views of Israel are well known. In Israel, there is no apartheid. Nothing there comes close to the definition of apartheid under the 1998 Rome Statute."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/opinion/israel-and-the-apartheid-slander.html

[azurnoir]

7. Has it occurred that

it's the "peoples tribunal" precisely because it has no government backing?

If it did have governmental backing, it would not be the peoples tribunal

[sabbat hunter]

8. but it has no authority

or right to declare anything or request anything from the UN.

It is basically the modern day equivalent of mob justice

[azurnoir]

9. do you understand what

'peoples tribunal' means and mob justice is a bit overblown IMO as they as you pointed out have no authority or are you insinuating they intend to do more than talk?

[sabbat hunter]

10. I think that they may try

to use their 'findings' to do things like organize more boycotts of Israel, even though their 'findings' are bullshit. They can also indirectly influence violent groups with their 'findings' who will use it to justify violent attacks on Israel.

[azurnoir]

11. again a boycott is a non-violent peoples protest

and violent groups do not need this to 'justify or influence' their violence, if that were true then there would have not been much violence up till now, but it seems here you do not approve of either violent or non-violent protests of Israel

and as to BS findings that is your opinion

[sabbat hunter]

12. Their findings were

pre-determined. That is why they are bullshit.

In addition being that their finding were pre-determined, anything resulting from them is bullshit as well.

[azurnoir]

13. again that is your opinion

and everyone has one

[King_David]

14. Kangaroo court ,

On par with the UNHRC .

Goldstone at least retracted his
"judgement " tho.

The Russell "Tribunal" has Delusions of relevence...

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

16. "Goldstone at least retracted his "judgement " tho. "

The other authors of the report hadn't, and stand by it. Perhaps if they realized that Goldstone could be "Goldstoned" they would have asked him to take secondary role.

The report still stands. Nice try. Or do you believe that they are all bigots?



But back to the OP.

Call it what you will, but change is a coming.

[sabbat hunter]

17. I believe that

everyone involved in this "tribunal" was biased against Israel and it had a predetermined outcome.

They only listened to people who told them what they wanted to hear.

And what sort of change is coming?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

18. That's nice what you personally believe. Good for you.

You can let King D answer for himself on this.

[azurnoir]

20. Kangaroo Court would that like one that has a

99.74%-99.88% conviction rate?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

21. Not a group that deserves any credence

And that is clear to just about everyone, no matter how you feel about Israel.

[Violet_Crumble]

22. No, it's not clear to just about everyone, no matter how we feel about Israel...

It'd take someone that deserves credence to tell me whether any group deserves credence or not, and partisans who are one-sided when it comes to the conflict, such as yrself, aren't folk I'd really trust when it comes to telling me what deserves credence or not. Even if someone I trusted to be objective were to tell me a group deserved credence or not, I'd make my own mind up. In the case of the Russell Tribunal, I've yet to see anything that leads me to either trust them or not.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

23. Then get back to us when you have reviewed their process