50 thoughts on “Amnesty – Apartheid? What a pile of…..”

1. Was this the charity that our long time house troll Stephen mentioned that he worked for on his one trip to Israel during his gap 9 months ? He reckoned he was a brickie for the Bedouins until someone pointed out that they live in tents !!

   Stephen, can you clarify ? I’d ask Brucie, but he’s never been to Israel.

   1. I have never worked for anyone fuckwit. Work is for losers

      1. So you did it for nowt ? I think we can all agree that there’s only one loser here son and it ain’t the Bedouin.

   2. My friend hasn’t been to Israel either unless you count Ben Gurion as Israel.

      ” what is the purpose of your visit”

      ” Ive come to see the old shit”

      I told her ” no you fuck wihat you say iI have come to get married.I can find you loads of guys in Jerusalem that will marry you if it helps. Just marry one though cuz otherwise even the dumb fuck Israeli immigration guys might get suspicious”

      1. Oh.

   3. Never visited “Israel”, but have been to Palestine dozens of times.

2. So would any future independent Palestinian state (if it ever actually happened) be a beacon to the world with regards to….

   Multiculturalism?
   Religious freedom?
   Gay rights?
   Women’s rights?
   Political freedom?
   Civil rights?
   Civil liberties?
   Democracy?
   Tolerance and acceptance?
   Etc…..etc….?

   If Amnesty are accusing Israel of doing it all wrong for decades do they really think that a future independent Palestine will get all of this right? And if so then what evidence do they have to support it?

   🙄

   1. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

   2. They don’t need any evidence. They have their hate and that’s all that counts as far as they’re concerned. Pathetic losers.

   3. Your regular rabbinic reminder that Israel is STILL an apartheid state.

      From the river to the sea,
      Palestine will be free 🇵🇸 ✌🏼

3. And wherte were David, Ian, the ZF and the jewish chronicle and the rest of the complicit right ?

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI23eUo4ohA

   1. uh ?

      1. I see

   2. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 What a bunch of losers and haters!!!

4. I left Amnesty a few years ago after their report on the coalition’s war against ISIS in Iraq. Apparently the coalition was more of a problem than ISIS….!

5. Amnesty has this halo of righteous bout it that allows it to wage a ‘war’ against its perceived enemies.
   Amnesty was in the vanguard of the anti-Israel movement years before it became fashionable.
   The problem is that an organisation like Amnesty requires money, and as they do not do any actual work that has a monetary value, they need to construct a narrative that can be marketed as a fund raising venture.

   And unfortunately there are a number of strands that make Israel the perfect target because it appeals to such a diverse group of people.
   There are the Antisemites for whom ‘The Jew Among the Nations’ has been replaced by ‘Israel as the Jew Among the Nations’.
   There are the Islamists who hate Israel because it exists and is an affront to the concept of the ‘Ummah’.
   And then we have those that I call the ‘lefty liberal neo-fascists’ that need a cause to replace South Africa as a unifying force for their progressive politics.

   And Amnesty is right there in the thick of the anti-Israel groupies; note I did not say pro-Palestinian because nothing they do will ever contribute to the creation of a viable Palestinian state

   1. You’re right Richard. Amnesty can only be judged by the company it keeps and having our long time house troll and budding Bedouin brickie Stephen on their books can’t have helped.

      He’s the chap who has spent nearly a decade visiting us here on the daily and has advanced no further than this contribution from yesterday; ” I told her ‘ no you fuck wihat you say iI his come to get married’ .”

      Ah well. They make ’em and pair ’em.

      1. Amnesty can only be judged by the company it keeps

         As can David. Ian the gift that keeps on giving

         1. Aaah Stephen, thanks, and you’re always here, my anxious little bridesmaid hoping to catch the bouquet. Sweet.

            1. You need to get yourself to gate keeping skool cuz at the mo you are an almighty fuckup

               1. Oh.

   2. Palestinians themselves and human rights supporters have abandoned the illusion of a “two state solution”. The paradigm has finally shifted.

6. ‘Boxcar Brucie”

   The fake rabbi and serial Holocaust denigrator and revisionist.

   Could you please supply factual evidence to back up your spurious allegations that Israel is a supposedly apartheid state.

   Please show laws etc, but it must be factual, not anecdotal. Also be aware that accusing one country of doing something, yet ignoring other countries far worse transgressions of the same issue leaves you open to being accused of being a hypocrite/racist bigot/liar

7. “Israel – by its very existence – is an Apartheid state – and always was”.

   But, what if this is true?

   1. It isn’t. No more than the earth is flat. It doesn’t matter how many times people repeat that they think the earth is flat – nor how many people would like it to be flat for their own ideological purposes. It still isn’t, and entertaining the thought is pointless.

      1. Except that this is merely a circular statement. There is no argument.

         I suggest that it might more sensible that you just get used, and accept, that Palestians and their supporters consider Israel as inherently an apartheid state ince its inception, and their judgement will never change.

         And the Western moves towards the same concepts regarding apartheid, discrimination and racism.

8. Gabriel

   The UN definition of Apartheid is very specific and precise

   Apartheid is a legalised system of racial oppression with specific laws regulating what, where and how different races can interrelate with one. I know; I was born in South Africa and spent all of my formative years there. Different buses, different toilets, different trains, different places where to live, laws on who you could have sex with, different schools, jobs reserved for different races, and the list goes on; all regulated and enforced by law.

   Tell me where these laws are in Israel. Until it can be shown where these laws etc are, any accusation of Apartheid against Israel is malicious gossip and in my view driven by anti-Jewish racist bigotry

   1. No. Apartheid is not a system with specific laws regulating where and how different races can interrelate with each other.

      Apartheid is an institutionalized system aimed at maintaining a domination by a racial group over another, through means that include inhumane actions.

      (The rigid inter-race rules in South Africa were only *one* specific legal feature, among many others, *in* the South African apartheid system, those strictly racial regulations were called “petty apartheid”)

      Apartheid is a crime against humanity. It is also a “crime with no borders”.
      That means, being a crime against humanity, the legal status or teh citizenship status of the victim it is irrelevant, it is not specifically a crime by a state against its own citizens: on the contrary, denial of citizenship itself (as in Myanmar) can be an element of the crime of apartheid.
      Without borders means that territorial jurisdiction is also irrelevant: apartheid is not “in” Israel, it is *perpetrated by Israel*, aganist Palestinians everywhere.

9. I was chatting about this today with my dentist, a 7 series beamer driving Israeli Arab who lives in a house I could only dream of. I said whaddya think of that Amnesty report. He said “These pricks know nothing. Look at that fuckwit Bellamy. He thinks I’m the happiest black in Africa. Now, that’ll be 800 shekels please.”

10. The Amnesty report is indeed a hatchet job on Israel but the falsity of most of the statements within are blatantly obvious. Even easily obtained facts are ignored or suppressed. Just one example: the claim that Gaza has the highest unemployment in the world. Ironically that dubious honour belongs to post- Apartheid South Africa.

11. Gabriel

    What relevance has your comment as to whether Israel is or isn’t an Apartheid state

    As I said previously Apartheid is the system of government where racism,discrimination and repression are written into and enforced by the law.

    Waffling on about a two state solution is irrelevant to the discussion, and anyway is a whole different issue

    Your comment is just a weak attempt at obfuscation

    1. You are right, waffling about a two state solution is irrelevant.
       But this is exactly what *you* did.

       It’s *you* the one who mentioned the 2 state solution first, in your comment above, as you wrote: “nothing they do will ever contribute to the creation of a viable Palestinian state” .

       I was only responding to your comment.
       A “viable Palestinian state” is obviously not the aim of the Palestinian cause, itself it is not sufficient to guarantee Palestinian rights, it is also itself not a desirable goal for Palestinians, and imho not politically possible.

       Now, the legal point about apartheid.
       Actually, no, Apartheid is not a system of government; the crime is also not “racism” or “discrimination”, but rather the element is *domination*. And it is not about discriminatory rules being “written into” the law or enforced by law, but rather where racial domination is *institutionalized*.

       A Q&A list on the Amnesty report:
       https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/research/2022/02/qa-israels-apartheid-against-palestinians-cruel-system-of-domination-and-crime-against-humanity/

12. Incidentally, Palestinians have never really been interested in either peace or a two state solution, unless of course the two states happened to be Palestine next to Palestine, with Israel totally removed from the picture.

    You need to see translations of their speeches to their Arab audiences to understand that.

    Trouble is you so-called human rights whonks are either to blind or disinterested in recognising that reality

    1. Palestinians agreed to the Arab League proposal, but Israel rejected it.
       Israel in some moments offered some “two state solution” were Palestinians would have a “state” which would be actually a bantustan with no real sovereignity, without Jerusalem, without recognition of UN resolutions, and without admitting Israel’s responsability for the Nakba.
       In exchange for such humilating bantustan-like condition, Israel demanded that Palestinians formally cancel the right of return of refugees, that they abandoned any hope for justice and that they legitimize the Nakba and Zionism.
       In other words what Israel wants is that they behave as defeated folks, repudiate their narrative, embrace the Zionist one and be good boys accepting the conditions of the winner.
       You are right that the Palestinians are not interested in such an offer.

       It is true that Palestinian will never see Zionism as legitimate and wille never see Israel as a “state of the Jews”, since most Palestinians are refugees and Israel is their country, and because their identity is determined by the trauma of being the victims of the Nakba.

       But what Palestinian desire and think is irrelevant to the point: they shall be free to believe the national ideology they want. There is freedom of thought.
       Their rights, on the other hand, are unconditional.

       What they think shall be irrelevant because their rights are unconditional. It shall make no difference at all what they are “interested” in, they must be given their rights unconditionally and immediately because their rights are universal, irrespective of their ideology.

       1. Lots of talk from Gabriel (surely not THAT Gabriel?) about “Palestinians”; a term admitted by the PLO leadership to have been invented by Arabs after 1967 to allow them to continue to pursue their ambitions of nationalism. For the purpose of this discussion we can eliminate this as it not a sensible or helpful term of reference.

          What Israelis think is that they have no responsibility to reward military failure. Losers do not dictate terms and that backing the wrong side has consequences. History is written by victors and for the avoidance of doubt, that is Israel.

          Does that clear things up a little?

          1. So it looks like Israel is still having some problems dictating history to international human rights organizations and to the rest of the world.

             1. As victors, we’re just the authors. How the world chooses to interpret the implications of our victories or attempts to impose it’s will on us from its debating chambers in the West is their problem, not ours. We’ve still got our slate with the yanks, are pals with the Soviets and have a healthy order book for our innovative products and services amongst the many countries that need to be seen to be our critics in the open forums. Opponents coming to blogs of this type feigning concern for the losers and for the consequences of their poor decisions and failures in battle, is just a handy guise for winding up a few diaspora Jews. This sort of toss doesn’t really register on our radar.

13. Gabriel

    You have confirmed my point.

    The only narrative and peace the Palestinians will accept is the removal/destruction of Israel.
    You can wiggle your wonk as much as you like, but Israel will never accept her destruction.

    The way Islam/Islamists treat minorities, as evidenced by the fate of Christians, Yazidis and others in the Middle East and North Africa, does not engender much faith in the Jews of Israel accepting minority status either.
    The majority of Jews in Israel are also descendants of Jews who were expelled and/or were forced out of Arab/Muslim countries in the mid-twentieth century and most have no desire to become a minority again under the uncertainty that Palestinian rule would bring.

    As far as the Palestinians ever accepting any peace proposal, the one offered by the Arab countries was for Israel to withdraw to the 1967 armistice lines before the POSSIBILITY of negotiations could begin. Only a dumbwit would go for that

    1. That the Palestinian will never accept the Zionist narrative is no mystery. The two narratives are mutually excluding.
       There is no point asking Palestinians to accept a legitimacy of Zionism: they won’t.
       One cannot ask other people to believe an ideology they don’t believe.
       In particular, one cannot ask people to believe an ideology which legitimizes their own ethnic cleansing.

       Any point about Palestinian narrative is just irrelevant. They reject Zionism. So what?
       Do people have an obligation to believe some narrative, in order to have their fundamental rights recognized? Obviously not. Rights are unconditional.

       Actually, what you say about Palestinians and peace proposals is false: Palestinian did take part to negotiations over decades, those negotiations were very serious and they were no joke. They would not have invested so much time and political capital into negotiations if they had no serious intention. What you say about the Arab Leauge proposal is just plain false: they never demanded that Israel should withdraw before negotiation (and also this is obviously false since they had always negotiated during the lasting occupation). Moreover, Abbas also made a counter-offer in 2008. Abbas also made another proposal in 2013, of a partial peace deal, to only seek ab agreement aount borders while leaving the refugee problems unsolved. Israel rejected all these proposals.

       Israel demands that Palestinians formally renounce their right of return, which is a demand Palestinians will never accept, neither there is any rational reason why they should.

       Palestinians want their rights, they want justice, not humanitarian concessions under a blackmail.

       Israel never offered to recognize its responsability and guilt for the Nakba. Israel never offered to recognize UN resolutions. Israel never offered East Jerusalem.
       The Palestinians will always reject any “proposal” which is actually a plan demands the cancellation of Israel’s responsability and the cancellation of the right of return.
       Most Palestinians are refugees, and their *only* interest is the right of return.
       They will always reject a “proposal” where they don’t have the whole of East Jerusalem, because they need Har Homa, Ma’ale Adumim and E1, in order to have an importan continuous central metropolis, and they need the territory of Bethlehem back, since Israel has stolen 88% of it.
       Palestinians will also reject any proposal where their “state” is disarmed, in the event that they have a state, because they have zero trust in Zionist Israelis and they only trust armed deterrence.
       Palestinians will also not accept something like the Israely Nation law, and legislation that prevents Palestinians with Israli citizenship from living with their Palestinian spouses, and have their whole family become citizens, as Jews do.

       The problem is not that Palestinian would refuse any peace offer: the problem is that Israel has no peace offer. It offers no rights recognition. It only offers denial of their rights.

14. Gabriel

    You also tend to ignore the expulsion of the Jews from the Arab/Muslim lands that I have heard Jews from those lands describe as their Nakba

    So don’t forget that there are multiple sides to every argument, and so-called progressives in the west are not going to force Israel to commit suicide

    1. There have been expulsions of Arab Jews from some Arab Countries in some instances, or anyway Arab Jews have left their countries of origins for various reasons.

       But Palestinians are not going to legitimize the Palestinian Nakba because of that. Nobody would.
       And you cannot demand that Palestinians are deprived of their rights as an exchange. If you do so, anyway they obviously won’t accept.

       If descendant of Arab Jews are serious about obtaining justice for their expulsion, they shall challenge their Arab countries and demand justice.

       This also happened with Jews from European coutnries: descendants of German Jews who were deproved of their citizenship, for example, they can demand their right to have their German citizenship restored. Descendants from Polish Jews could do the same.
       Obviously Arab Jews should press their countries of origin to recognize their right to demand citizenship and reparation.
       But also the Palestinians who are victims of the Zionist ethnic cleansing should advance the same demand for justice from Israel. They are victims, they suffered an irreversible trauma, a destruction of their whole nation, a traum which defines their very identity, and I see not reason whatsoever why they should abandon their yearn for justice.

15. Gabriel

    The Palestinians have refused to negotiate, and have refused since they were created/came in to being in the mid-twentieth century

    Read the original PLO charter which explicitly states that they are not interested in removing Jordans occupation of the west bank or Egyptian occupation of Gaza. The early 1960’s charter talks only of removing/destroying Israel.

    So your solution is the dispossession of over six million Israeli Jews. I hope you relish your thoughts and ideas on this ideological and religous conflict and how it will affect the future of Jews worldwide. Don’t forget the Holocaust preceded the rebirth of the State of Israel in 1948

    1. Richard, I sense that this Gabriel fella will skim your very comprehensive post and respond with a shrug of the shoulders and the reply ” not my problem”, and of course it isn’t. His/her mission ended with the post on this site and the targeted wind up of some Jews. Just another tepid activist filling their quota. As I mentioned above we Israelis take a very dim view of those who would do us harm and we will always act decisively to neutralize that threat one way or another. The Jew8ers seem to be very bothered by this. Wonder why.

16. This is a helpful addition to the above exchange about the Arab approach to Israel and the Israeli response.

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/ex-us-envoy-friedman-in-rivlin-meeting-trump-criticized-netanyahu-praised-abbas/

    Abu Mazen caught on tape demanding nothing less than the total destruction of Israel.

    See my comments above about the way Israel will continue to treat terrorists of this type. Even coalition partner and Islamist Party Ra’am won’t talk to them.

17. Gabriel

    Too much to address in one reply

    You said Abbas made a counter offer in 2008.
    Please give me the details, because as far as I’m concerned Olmert made him an offer. He then left and in typical Palestinian fashion never returned with anything.

    So please do let me have the details

18. Gabriel

    Below is a copy of the UNRWA definition of a Palestinian refugee.

    Note that you only have had to be a resident of Mandatory Palestine for TWO YEARS to be rated as a Palestinian refugee, irrespective of where and when you arrived there or how long you resided there.

    So it takes 2 years to decide on Palestinian history and ancestry, but ignores over 3500 years of Jewish ancestry. And you call yourself a rabbi or something similar

    Below is the UNRWA DEFINITION

    Palestine refugees are defined as “persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict.”

19. Gabriel

    You say Israeli Muslims aren’t allowed to live with their Palestinian spouses in Israel after marriage.

    They used to be allowed to reside together without any hassle, until it became a problem when these Palestinian spouses used their Israeli residency as a means of facilitating terrorism against Jewish Israelis. What this says is that the Palestinians were abusing this position to murder Jews. But then you don’t seem very concerned about whether Jews are murdered because they are Jews in the Holy Land

20. Gabriel

    You talk of a Palestinian ‘right of return’ as if this is a legal right, even if they were only resident in Mandatory Palestine for TWO YEARS

    Can you show me where this ‘right’ is enshrined in any law, and who endorsed it.

    Don’t confuse it with the ‘Jewish right of return’ which was enshrined in Israeli law as an antidote to centuries of Antisemitism directed at Jews to offer them a safe haven in times of persecution.

    I was wondering after this last screed of yours if you are a Palestinian in disguise, or if you one of those whom Stalin called ‘useful idiots’ to describe those who aid the enemy in trying to destroy their country/birthright

21. Gabriel

    Stop being an apologist for the Arabs/Muslims who ETHNICALLY CLEANSED nearly a million Jews from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) over a couple of decades.

    There are virtually no Jews left in the MENA. Show me one voluntary migration where the entire population departed. The only time that an entire section of a population leaves a country is via mass expulsions. Notice that Israeli Muslims compromise 20% of Israels population, whereas there are no Jews in MENA countries where they predated Islam by centuries.

22. Gabriel

    You talk of the destruction of the Palestinian nation

    I would appreciate it if you could supply me with evidence of a ‘Palestinian Nation’ prior to 1948.

    A nation normally comprises of more than just a group of people that have lived in an area as various tribal entities without any particular national ethos. Only since the rebirth of Israel in 1948 have the people who call themselves Palestinian had any form community ethos and been able to label themselves under a common title called Palestinian. Before 1948 the only people who called themselves Palestinian were the Jews of Palestine

Comments are closed.