[QatzelOk]

The UN Rights Council has condemned Israel as having the worst human rights record on the planet currently.

UN names democratic Israel as world’s top human rights violator
According to the United Nations, the most evil country in the world today is Israel.
On March 24, 2016, the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) wrapped up its annual meeting in New York by condemning only one country for violating women’s rights anywhere on the planet – Israel, for violating the rights of Palestinian women.

On the same day, the U.N. Human Rights Council concluded its month-long session in Geneva by condemning Israel five times more than any other of the 192 UN member states.

There were five Council resolutions on Israel. One each on the likes of hellish countries like Syria, North Korea and Iran. Libya got an offer of “technical assistance.” And countries like Russia, Saudi Arabia and China were among the 95 percent of states that were never mentioned.

Fox noticed the absurdity of calling out "The Middle East's only European democracy," of course.
And a smear campaign has already been launched against the legal experts who did the research:

Canada calls on UN to review Palestine human rights appointment

TORONTO, Canada – Canada’s foreign minister has called on the United Nations to review the appointment of a Canadian legal expert as the new Special Rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories.

On Friday, Stephane Dion urged the UN Human Rights Council to review the appointment of Michael Lynk, a law professor at the University of Western Ontario, and ensure the Special Rapporter “has [a] track record that can advance peace in region”.

“Canada will continue to advocate for transparent processes for the appointment of credible, impartial & objective Special Rapporteurs,” Dion wrote on Twitter.

The public comments came as pro-Israel lobby groups and conservative lawmakers have come out in full force against Lynk, accusing the professor of a pro-Palestinian bias and of being involved in “anti-Israel advocacy” in Canada.

But supporters and experts on the Israel-Palestine conflict in Canada say Ottawa has dangerously tarnished the reputation of a respected legal scholar without cause – and the attacks against Lynk may have a silencing effect on other Canadians.
...

Conclusion: normal people are not allowed to discuss Israel's activities. This is a Freedom of Speech that is strictly prohibited. When Dion talks favorably about a rep who can "advance peace in the region," what he really wants is someone who won't endanger Jewish financial contributions to his party. Which is standard in a European Democracy.

[redcarpet]

Lol, what rot. Probably China or the tyranny of the House of Saud is.

On the same day, the U.N. Human Rights Council concluded its month-long session in Geneva by condemning Israel five times more than any other of the 192 UN member states.

Yes. The HRC should be abolished IMO, it's a joke. There are far worse violators around the world, such as the PRC or the Arab dictators. Waiting for them to get anything like this treatment, not optimistic

[QatzelOk]

If I were the world's worse human-rights violator, I would ALSO use my money and media connections to smear other countries, particularly those with useful resources for my allies and puppet states.

[noemon]

I don't think there is any country in the world today that administers people under its authority with no legal rights & recourse. Even countries who occupy territories the occupied still have legal rights within the occupier's legal framework, Gazans and West Bank people as far as anyone can tell have absolutely no legal recourse to defend themselves and their basic human rights in a court of law be it military or otherwise, so it is no surprise that this will be pointed out at some point and quite long it took.

The HRC should be abolished IMO, it's a joke.

Look there is no compulsion in anything, Israel can remove itself from the UN and its appendant organisations like the UNHCR. The world does not need to abolish the UNHCR to make Israelis and Jews feel better with themselves, Israel can just as well strike off its name from the UN and the UNHCR will no longer bother with such jokes anyway. The UN did not force Israel to join, Israel applied to join on its own accord, how does the UN still tolerate it when it appropriated UN property in Jerusalem is beyond me though, Israel is the only country that I am aware of that stole UN property from the UN itself without providing compensation in 2008.

[QatzelOk]

Israel is the only country that I am aware of that stole UN property from the UN itself without providing compensation in 2008.

If God gives you everything and tells you to control other nations (races), there is no such thing as "stealing." (or killing, it seems)

How can one be accused of "stealing" lands that the giant magician in the sky gave you fair and square?

[ArtAllm]

Conclusion: normal people are not allowed to discuss Israel's activities. This is a Freedom of Speech that is strictly prohibited.

We still have to get used to the Orwellian definitions of the "Freedom of Speech".

If God gives you everything and tells you to control other nations (races), there is no such thing as "stealing." (or killing, it seems)

How can one be accused of "stealing" lands that the giant magician in the sky gave you fair and square?

Zionists use the following tactics and logical fallacies:

If you point out the crimes of Zionists against the native Semites of Palestine, then they will accuse you of hating Semites, speak Zionists Jews, speak you are an anti-Semite, speak a racist that hates all Jews without any exception just because of their presumed "Semitism".

And you are not free to hate, and that is why you should not be able to point out the crimes of Zionism, because Zionists are Jews, and Jews are an ethno-religious group, and Marr called this group "Semites".

If you hate Zionists, then you hate Semites, and that means that you are a racist and a hater.

That logic is called circular reasoning, but if you do not agree with this reasoning, they will play the "Holocaust-Card" and say that Zionists have special rights to violate human rights because of the Holocaust. If you do not agree, then they will accuse you of denying their right to exist and of being reluctant to prevent another Holocaust.

[Heinie]

Israel is an abomination because of the way it treats its Arab citizens and the Palestinian people whom it occupies. It's whole reason for existence, to have a Jewish state, and the policy it uses to further this goal, namely theft of Palestinian land, has the root of its self-destruction already built into it. The fascist apartheid state is on borrowed time.

[Zionist Nationalist]

Israel is an abomination because of the way it treats its Arab citizens and the Palestinian people whom it occupies. It's whole reason for existence, to have a Jewish state, and the policy it uses to further this goal, namely theft of Palestinian land, has the root of its self-destruction already built into it. The fascist apartheid state is on borrowed time.

Israel treats its Arab citizens fine.

and Israel is far from being fascist and apartheid although

BTW

Those signs are warning for Israelis not to enter to the "Palestinian terrotiroes" in order not to get lynched or kidnapped or whatever

such signs dont exist for "Palestinians" who want to enter into Israel

[noemon]

Because only Israelis are free to cross checkpoints without being tormented by the IDF.

[Zionist Nationalist]

Because only Israelis are free to cross checkpoints without being tormented by the IDF.

Palestinians can cross into Israel under some conditions yeah they are being tormented but for a reason you know very well. its impossible otherwise in the current circumstances.

[noemon]

Miko Peled(A General's Son) originally posted by skinster explains these signs as well as a lot more things in Israel:

[youtube]TOaxAckFCuQ[/youtube]

[wat0n]

I don't think there is any country in the world today that administers people under its authority with no legal rights & recourse. Even countries who occupy territories the occupied still have legal rights within the occupier's legal framework, Gazans and West Bank people as far as anyone can tell have absolutely no legal recourse to defend themselves and their basic human rights in a court of law be it military or otherwise, so it is no surprise that this will be pointed out at some point and quite long it took.

So that's why Palestinians petition Israeli courts and win cases in instances such as changing the route of the WB barrier?

[noemon]

Because that petition was made by Israeli settlers, Israeli Green environmentalists as well as Palestinians and in that case the barrier would destroy a UNESCO protected site in an occupied area where these rules are supposed to apply:

The duties of the occupying power are spelled out primarily in the 1907 Hague Regulations (arts 42-56) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV, art. 27-34 and 47-78), as well as in certain provisions of Additional Protocol I and customary international humanitarian law.

Agreements concluded between the occupying power and the local authorities cannot deprive the population of occupied territory of the protection afforded by international humanitarian law (GC IV, art. 47) and protected persons themselves can in no circumstances renounce their rights (GC IV, art. .

The main rules o f the law applicable in case of occupation state that:

The occupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory.

Occupation is only a temporary situation, and the rights of the occupant are limited to the extent of that period.

The occupying power must respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the international law of occupation.

The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.

To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the occupying power must ensure sufficient hygiene and public health standards, as well as the provision of food and medical care to the population under occupation.

The population in occupied territory cannot be forced to enlist in the occupier's armed forces.

Collective or individual forcible transfers of population from and within the occupied territory are prohibited.

Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited.

Collective punishment is prohibited.

The taking of hostages is prohibited.

Reprisals against protected persons or their property are prohibited.

The confiscation of private property by the occupant is prohibited.

The destruction or seizure of enemy property is prohibited, unless absolutely required by military necessity during the conduct of hostilities.

Cultural property must be respected.

People accused of criminal offences shall be provided with proceedings respecting internationally recognized judicial guarantees (for example, they must be informed of the reason for their arrest, charg ed with a specific offence and given a fair trial as quickly as possible).

Personnel of the International Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement must be allowed to carry out their humanitarian activities. The ICRC, in particular, must be given access to all protected persons, wherever they are, whether or not they are deprived of their liberty.

It's a good pretension though...but not really.

[wat0n]

I'm not talking about the 2012 petition, but one from 2005 (there was one in 2004, but it was lodged by Israeli NGOs on some Palestinians' behalf).

[noemon]

You did not specify anything so I brought the first google result that came up, but still both you and the wiki editor are misrepresenting the facts.

These petitions have been brought to Israeli Justice by Israeli bodies not by Palestinian physical persons, Palestinian physical persons are less than Israeli pets and cattle as far as anyone can tell.

In February 2004, Israel's High Court of Justice[1] began hearing petitions from two Israeli human rights organizations, the Hamoked Centre for the Defense of the Individual and the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, against the building of the barrier, referring to the distress it will cause to Palestinians in the area. The Israeli High Court of Justice has heard several petitions related to the barrier, sometimes issuing temporary injunctions or setting limits on related Israeli activities.

[wat0n]

I talked specifically about the one in 2005, brought up by some Palestinian villages.

[noemon]

Bring evidence that Palestinian physical persons and not Israeli bodies brought that case before the courts.

The facts disagree with you and the wiki editor who coyly wrote "Palestinian petitioners" without providing any citation, pretending that occupied Palestinians have any legal rights whatsoever.

These events led to a number of important cases to be presented in the Israeli High Court of Justice. This volume provides a sample of these decisions. The Beit Sourik (June 2004) and Alfei Menasheh (September 2005) cases analyze the legal requirements and rationale behind the security fence.

In both cases Israeli bodies petitioned the courts, not Palestinians. And in the 2005 case it was an Israeli settlement(Alfei Menasheh) in the west bank that had the issue against the wall.

[wat0n]

Huh, no it wasn't?

Here's the ruling in the 2005 case, note that the petitioners are 5 Palestinians + ACRI and the settlement's council is among the respondents:

H.C.J. 7957/04

Petitioners: 1. Zaharan Yunis Muhammad Mara'abe
2. Morad Ahmed Muhammad Ahmed
3. Muhammad Jamil Mas'ud Shuahani
4. Adnan Abd el Rahman Daud Udah
5. Abd el Rahim Ismail Daud Udah
6. Bassem Salah Abd el Rahman Udah
7. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel
8.
v.

Respondents: 1. The Prime Minister of Israel
2. The Minister of Defense
3. The Commander of IDF Forces in the Judea and Samaria Area
4. The Separation Fence Authority
5. The Alfei Menashe Local Council

And it's not the only one, there is also a case on the barrier in Bi'lin:.

HCJ 8414/05


Ahmed Issa Abdallah Yassin, Bil'in Village Council Chairman

v.

1. The Government of Israel
2. The Military Commander in the West Bank
3. Green Park Inc.
4. Green Mount Inc.
5. The Land Redemption Planning and Development Fund
6. Ein Ami Enterprise & Development Company Ltd.
7. The Modi'in Illit Local Council
8. Heftsiba Construction and Development Ltd.


The Supreme Court sitting as High Court of Justice

And there are also cases unrelated to the WB barrier:

HCJ 2150/07

Ali Hussein Mahmoud Abu Safiyeh, Beit Sira Village Council Head, and 24 others
v.
1. Minister of Defense
2. IDF Commander in the Judaea and Samaria Area
3. Commander of the Benjamin Brigade
4. Shurat Hadin Israel Law Center and 119 others
5. Fence for Life

The Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice
[5 March 2008]

Before President D. Beinisch and Justices E.E. Levy, U. Vogelman

Petition to the Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice

HCJ 9132/07
Jaber Al-Bassiouni Ahmed and others
v
1. Prime Minister
2. Minister of Defence

The Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice
[27 January 2008]
Before President D. Beinisch, Justice E. Hayut and Justice J. Elon
Petition to the High Court of Justice for an Order Nisi and an Interim Order

[noemon]

And these are all pretensions quite likely intentional pretensions for this particular reason in the 04 case we know for a fact that:

In February 2004, Israel's High Court of Justice[1] began hearing petitions from two Israeli human rights organizations, the Hamoked Centre for the Defense of the Individual and the Association for Civil Rights in Israel

In the 2005 case we know for a fact that the Claimant was an Israeli settlement(Alfei Menasheh) that protested against the wall. In the 2012 case where Israel agreed to not destroy the UNESCO site in West Bank again we know that the people who claimed against Israel were Israeli settlers and Israeli Green environmentalist along with Palestinians. The rest have no context. But in none of these cases is your point made that Israel recognises Palestinian's in the occupied territories as anything more than cattle, in all these cases some Palestinians benefited precisely because their issues were lodged by Israeli settlers and Israeli organisations.

Throwing some Arabic names in the mix for good measure does not mean much, especially when the facts say otherwise.

Not to mention that the mere existence of a wall inside Occupied territory is a violation of international and the ICJ has already ruled against that as well.

[skinster]

Those signs are warning for Israelis not to enter to the "Palestinian terrotiroes" in order not to get lynched or kidnapped or whatever

such signs dont exist for "Palestinians" who want to enter into Israel

Palestinians who want to enter Israel aren't allowed to because they're under many restrictions of movement in the West Bank and imprisoned in Gaza. However, if you mean the 20% of Palestinians who live inside Israel, they only have to deal with heavily armed soldiers and plenty of discrimination.

The sign warning Israelis not enter Area A in the West Bank are placed there by Israeli authorities and warn Israelis that it is a felony to enter, Palestinians didn't place them there, as you are suggesting. It is also illegal for Israelis to enter Gaza; Israeli authorities are making it very difficult for international people to get inside and report from Gaza, but some are still able to make it every now and then, usually with some difficulty.