@dEmiGod: Because facts on the ground are more important than rhetoric - especially when the facts on the ground shows up the emptiness of the rhetoric. In fact, more, it's complete moral bankruptcy.

@dEmigOd: No, that isn't what I said. I suggest you read my answer again .

@F1Krazy: Can you explain to me why it isn't "a frame challenge"? When it so obviously is?

@F1Krazy: you wrote "It should be made clear that this is a frame challenge ...". Did you read my first sentence when I said "I don't agree with the premise of the question"? How is that not being clear?

@F1Krazy: Reading beyond the first paragraph shows that I am contesting that Israel extends full human rights to Palestinians. The evidence I give for this is that several respected human rifhts organisations have declared Israel to be an apartheid state and that the ICC has ruled Israel is currently commiting plausible genocide. Where am I not being clear?

"The point is whilst Israel is a regional power, the Palestinians have nothing. In fact, less than nothing" When Jews had nothing and Arabs/Muslim had everything, Muslims were "of course, the masters in every respect...Nothing equals the misery and the sufferings of the Jews at Jerusalem, inhabiting the most filthy quarter of the town, called hareth-el-yahoud, the quarter of dirt, ... – the constant objects of Mussulman oppression and intolerance". Source.

This attitude is prevalent in much of the Arab world today. Else, how do you explain the destruction of one ancient synagogue in Tunisia by a violent mob of hundreds and the vandalism of another since Israel began responding to the Hamas atrocities of Oct. 7th? Why is it OK to damage Jewish property because Israel has done something wrong?

The "reputable human rights organizations" have an axe to grind. For example, the Amnesty apartheid report conflates between the Arabs/Palestinians with Israeli citizenship, who enjoy full rights and equality under law and (generally) de facto; and Palestinians under PA or Hamas control, whose rights are to be assured by the PA or Hamas. To get an idea of how skewed these organizations can be, take the Eli Yishai misquote as an example.

plausibly committed genocide If your source is the ICJ ruling, former ICJ President Joan Donoghue clarified that the court ruled Palestinians had a right to be protected from genocide, and South Africa had a right to bring their case, but not that Israel was plausibly committing genocide. Source at 5:00.

@Zev Spitz: You wrote that Amnesty apartheid report "conflates" between the Israeli Palestinians with Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. The point is that Israel is the de facto power in the West Bank and Gaza - this is why they are referred to as the "Occupying Power" and when taking this into account the case for aparthied is clear.

@Zev Spitz: The interim ICJ judgement said, " “In the Court’s view, the facts and circumstances... are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible.” Thus my claim of plausible genocide.

@Zev Spitz: That the Jews had "nothing" was entirely due to the Holocaust which was executed by Germany, a European power - it had nothing to do with Palestine or indeed the larger Arab world. It's monstrous that Palestinians are having to pay for a European crime. In fact, Lord Moynes, when the war with Nazi Germany was turning in the British favour, offered the Zionist leadership part of Germany as a homeland for the Jews, they refused. That would have been justice. Instead they chose the road of injustice to the Palestinians with the end result of apartheid and plausible genocide.

The silliness of the ICC accusation can be easily demonstrated - as you so aptly pointed out - by facts on the ground, which indicate that there is no famine in Gaza; meat, chicken and fresh vegetables are all available, if at a slightly higher price than pre-war levels. Source

@MoziburUllah No, it isn't. Is Israel also guilty of apartheid when it doesn't provide citizenship and all benefits thereof to the people of Nigeria? No, because Nigeria - for better or worse - has a government; it is that government's responsibility to take care of its peoples' rights. The PA and Hamas are no less responsible.

The argument for apartheid can only be made if you have a government and laws that discriminate between citizens of different ethnicities. Israel's government and laws most emphatically do not. (except for some minor points which allow Israel to remain a multicultural society, such as informally allowing bigamy in the Bedouin even though it's illegal under Israeli law.)

@MoziburUllah What does it mean for a right to be "plausible"? Provide a full, uncensored source so we can try to tease out a meaning from the legalese.

@MoziburUllah You seem to have missed the source I quoted about Jews' position in Jerusalem in 1854, almost 90 years before the Holocaust, and long before anyone was identifying as Palestinian; even though Jews were the majority, Muslims still ruled with an iron fist. Such an Arab/Muslim attitude was certainly not unique to then-Ottoman-Palestine: meforum.org/65271/uncle-tom-and-the-happy-dhimmi

@MoziburUllah "Justice" would be to rebuild the ancient centuries-old Jewish community of Gaza which thanks to Arab ethnic cleansing was eradicated in 1948. Or the even more ancient Jewish community of Hebron, which was decimated by Arab mobs in 1929; and no, the three or four streets in Hebron proper allotted to the Jewish ghetto constantly labelled "settlers" is a poor substitute.