pleb_maximus

Hm… vielleicht sollte ich mir auch was mit Schichtdienst suchen. Scheint ja beim abspecken zu helfen.

Schon so alt, dass du den vergisst? Dem konnte man ja eine ganze Weile lang gar nicht entkommen. (Und war auch sehr einprägsam)

Username doesn't check out. It should be "jabitte"!

No, that's just his old friends.

Dommy mommy?
  🥺
👉 👈

and also (thanfully) very dead.

No, no. Don't you know that he works as a foreman in an Argentinian VW plant?

Yup, yup. Unser Hausspinner. Fast schon niedlich, wenn es nicht so armselig wäre.

Er hat übrigens noch immer nicht eingesehen, dass es nichts brignt das zu leugnen und behauptet erst vor kurzem von reddit hierher gekommen zu sein.

Ach, dafür muss man gar nicht erst in die Welt Kommentare um ähnliche Takes zu lesen:

Auch so ein Grund, warum Minister keine Tickets für lau bekommen sollten. Egal welcher Partei.

Das Zusammenfassung des Gutachtens kann man übrigens hier beim IGH auf Englisch lesen.

Da geht es auch um mehr als nur alleine um die Siedlungspolitik, sondern u.a. auch um den Umgang Israels mit den Palästinensern in den besetzten Gebieten. Auf Seite 14 f. heißt es u.a.:

D. The question of discriminatory legislation and measures
(paras. 180-229)

The Court then examines the question of the legal consequences arising from Israel’s adoption of related discriminatory legislation and measures”. Recalling the wording of question (a) and the conclusion it reached with regard to the interpretation of the questions, it notes that it must itself determine whether the legislation and measures identified by the request of the General Assembly are discriminatory. In this regard, the Court first considers that it has to limit its analysis to legislation and measures that are closely linked to the policies and practices discussed previously. Second, the question covers Israel’s legislation and measures only to the extent that they apply in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Third, the question is confined to the potentially discriminatory character of Israel’s legislation and measures.

Having thus defined the scope of question (a), the Court turns to the concept of discrimination. It considers that, common to all of the relevant provisions of international law is the concept of differential treatment between persons belonging to different groups. It observes, in this connection, that the existence of the Palestinian people is not at issue. Therefore, in the Court’s view, differential treatment of Palestinians can give rise to discrimination.

In order to answer question (a), the Court first examines the effects that Israel’s residence permit policy in East Jerusalem has on Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The Court then turns to the restrictions imposed by Israel on the movement of Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Finally, it examines Israel’s practice of demolition of Palestinian properties in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem, both with regard to the practice of punitive demolition and demolitions for lack of a building permit. The Court notes in that connection that it is reported that almost 11,000 Palestinian structures have been demolished since 2009.

The Court concludes from the evidence presented to it and on the basis of its analysis that a broad array of legislation adopted and measures taken by Israel in its capacity as an occupying Power treat Palestinians differently on grounds specified by international law. The Court notes that this differentiation of treatment cannot be justified with reference to reasonable and objective criteria nor to a legitimate public aim. Accordingly, the Court is of the view that the régime of comprehensive restrictions imposed by Israel on Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory constitutes systemic discrimination based on, inter alia, race, religion or ethnic origin, in violation of Articles 2, paragraph 1, and 26 of the ICCPR, Article 2, paragraph 2, of the ICESCR, and Article 2 of CERD.

The Court further observes that Israel’s legislation and measures impose and serve to maintain a near-complete separation in the West Bank and East Jerusalem between the settler and Palestinian communities. For this reason, the Court considers that Israel’s legislation and measures constitute a breach of Article 3 of CERD.

Und was ist Article 3 of CERD?

Article 3

States Parties particularly condemn racial segregation and apartheid and undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature in territories under their jurisdiction.

Oh, schau an. Rassentrennung und Apartheid. Wie antisemitisch vom IGH.

Ach, der bekloppte Todesstrafenfan mal wieder. Na, diesmal gar nicht fordern alle Palistinänser auszurotten?

Was war denn eigentlich mit UNRWA, außer haltlosen Anschuldigungen aus Israel?

Be sure to post the results to the corresponding communities.