5 ms·

Poking around, I think this is the thing that vote was about: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/N23/318/77/PDF/N2331877.pdf?OpenElement https://docu

by abeppu 3y ago

Poking around, I think this is the thing that vote was about: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/N23/318/77/PDF/N2331877.pdf?OpenElement https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/N23/318/77/PDF... While I agree with PG that this outcome should be jarring and force Americans to consider why our country has taken the positions it has, I think we also have to interrogate the resolution. What does a right to self-determination mean? Who gets to be a 'people'? If such a group is not unanimous in what they want, what does self-determination at the group level mean? When multiple such groups attempt to 'self-determine' in ways which are clearly in conflict, what does it mean for the international community to recognize such a general right?

whatshisface 3y ago
I think the language was chosen to mirror what a similar fraction of the world, except this time including the united states, would say that the people living on the right side of Israel's internal partition should have.
- abeppu 3y ago
  I dunno that such a large majority of the world would agree with such a statement. I'm all for human rights, individual rights. I agree that there is a basic floor of those rights which should be respected on either side of the partition, and everywhere else. But rights of a group of people to act as "a people" with a state, and control over a contiguous block of territory, seems way less credible. Does every civilian have a right not to be bombed or shot at or have power and water cut? Yes. Also rights to be treated equally before the law, not be subject to arbitrary detainment, fair and public trials, etc. But "a people" as a group having rights? Would Catalonia, Veneto, Wallonia etc have a "right" to be separate states if their populations desire it? Unclear. What if Afrikaners tried to assert such a right? Seems sus. Did people inside the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone have rights to create it? Probably not, even if they had organized a plebiscite first. So where's the line?
  - krapp 3y ago
    A "state" is nothing more than an abstraction, a collective social construct. The monopoly on violence is a franchise granted by the people, not nature. Self-determination can't be a right which only belongs to certain groups of people (say, Americans or Israelis) but not others.
    - cncovyvysi 3y ago
      Do Gazans not have self determination?
      - krapp 3y ago
        Yes, they do, that was my point.
thriftwy 3y ago
Who says their self-determination will be any less violent if their right is rejected and they do it anyway? Let's face a simple truth, Israel has no plan for Palestine but refuses to let it go. They are not winning this except by ethnic cleansing. We can imagine a State of Palestine stabilizing eventually, but we can't imagine how Israel can ever stabilize its roofless GULag camp.
- zozbot234 3y ago
  Even supposing you're right purely for the sake of argument, do you really think Hamas' plan for Palestine is any better? Given their Oct 2023 atrocities, they're no different than ISIS at this point.
  - thriftwy 3y ago
    They can eventually settle down. Israel atrocities are already two orders of magnitude worse at this point.
  - orwin 3y ago
    Hamas is not, and never was a majority in Palestine. It's trending upward since mid-november (what's happening in the West Bank might be the reason why).
    - G3rn0ti 3y ago
      > Hamas is not, and never was a majority in Palestine. Well, except Hamas won the last elections held in Gaza way back in 2007.
      - defrost 3y ago
        Check the election stats, Hamas "won" but without any clear majority. Moreover they won on the promise that they would seek a peaceful resolution with Isreal and they were (at that time) clearly the better of the only two realistic choices. The Hamas of 2007 was not the Hamas of last year.
bombcar 3y ago
I suspect a "The Catalan people deserve self-representation" would get lots of yes votes and Spain would vote no. I suspect similar for "The Quebequois" and Canada. The Scottish and the UK. On a surface level it doesn't say much.

by abeppu 3y ago

whatshisface 3y ago

I think the language was chosen to mirror what a similar fraction of the world, except this time including the united states, would say that the people living on the right side of Israel's internal partition should have.

abeppu 3y ago
I dunno that such a large majority of the world would agree with such a statement. I'm all for human rights, individual rights. I agree that there is a basic floor of those rights which should be respected on either side of the partition, and everywhere else. But rights of a group of people to act as "a people" with a state, and control over a contiguous block of territory, seems way less credible. Does every civilian have a right not to be bombed or shot at or have power and water cut? Yes. Also rights to be treated equally before the law, not be subject to arbitrary detainment, fair and public trials, etc. But "a people" as a group having rights? Would Catalonia, Veneto, Wallonia etc have a "right" to be separate states if their populations desire it? Unclear. What if Afrikaners tried to assert such a right? Seems sus. Did people inside the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone have rights to create it? Probably not, even if they had organized a plebiscite first. So where's the line?
- krapp 3y ago
  A "state" is nothing more than an abstraction, a collective social construct. The monopoly on violence is a franchise granted by the people, not nature. Self-determination can't be a right which only belongs to certain groups of people (say, Americans or Israelis) but not others.
  - cncovyvysi 3y ago
    Do Gazans not have self determination?
    - krapp 3y ago
      Yes, they do, that was my point.

thriftwy 3y ago

Who says their self-determination will be any less violent if their right is rejected and they do it anyway? Let's face a simple truth, Israel has no plan for Palestine but refuses to let it go. They are not winning this except by ethnic cleansing. We can imagine a State of Palestine stabilizing eventually, but we can't imagine how Israel can ever stabilize its roofless GULag camp.

zozbot234 3y ago
Even supposing you're right purely for the sake of argument, do you really think Hamas' plan for Palestine is any better? Given their Oct 2023 atrocities, they're no different than ISIS at this point.
- thriftwy 3y ago
  They can eventually settle down. Israel atrocities are already two orders of magnitude worse at this point.
- orwin 3y ago
  Hamas is not, and never was a majority in Palestine. It's trending upward since mid-november (what's happening in the West Bank might be the reason why).
  - G3rn0ti 3y ago
    > Hamas is not, and never was a majority in Palestine. Well, except Hamas won the last elections held in Gaza way back in 2007.
    - defrost 3y ago
      Check the election stats, Hamas "won" but without any clear majority. Moreover they won on the promise that they would seek a peaceful resolution with Isreal and they were (at that time) clearly the better of the only two realistic choices. The Hamas of 2007 was not the Hamas of last year.

bombcar 3y ago

I suspect a "The Catalan people deserve self-representation" would get lots of yes votes and Spain would vote no. I suspect similar for "The Quebequois" and Canada. The Scottish and the UK. On a surface level it doesn't say much.