9 ms·

The implication that the Palestinian cause must balance the State of Israel's governance is insulting and provocative, and sadly is exemplifies UN policy.

by ihsw 3y ago

runarberg 3y ago
The UN has from its founding been anti-colonial. So much so that one of its six principal (or founding) organs was the Trusteeship Council with the sole aim of granting independence to nations that found them selves colonized after World War 2. Now Palestine didn’t explicitly fall under the Trusteeship, but that is only because Israel declared independence in 1948. Non other then the US (under Truman) actually proposed that Palestine became a Trustee nation under the UN. The UN has largely been successful in its decolonization efforts (demonstrably for the better). I don’t think we give it enough credit for that. So, yes. This does indeed exemplify UN policy. And it is a good policy, which has been proven improve the lives of millions, if not billions, in more ways then we can count.
- tguvot 3y ago
  well, israel is a great example of decolonization of colonized territory. mission accomplished.
  - runarberg 3y ago
    The Trusteeship Council was indeed disbanded in 1994 when they considered their mission finished, following the independence of Palau. So, yes, you can say mission accomplished. However Palestine was never a Trust territory so it was always outside of that specific mission. However it still falls within UN’s greater mission of general decolonization. This is evidenced by one of its other Principal organs—the General Assembly—voting to start a trial at the ICJ (yet another one of its 6 Principle Organs) to see if Israel’s conduct in the occupied territories (including the West Bank and East Jerusalem) constitutes an illegal activity within international law. So, no, UN’s mission to decolonize Palestine is still very much ongoing. And it seems like the vast majority of member nations are not happy with the current state of affairs, and do indeed want greater efforts to be taken to further decolonization of Palestine.
    - tguvot 3y ago
      nope. this territory was already decolonized . nothing to do. occupation or not occupation has nothing to do with colonization. totally different topic.
      - runarberg 3y ago
        Very true, and I must admit my mistake here. Territories can be occupied without being a colony and colonies don’t need to be occupied. My home country of Iceland was a Danish colony with hardly any occupation by Danish forces, and when after independence we were occupied by the British and the Americans, but never a colony of the two. The ICJ case is about the occupation, not the colonization. However the language used in this case is very coded with terms of decolonization. The charter it self[1] for example: > 2. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, cease all measures contrary to international law, as well as discriminatory legislation, policies and actions in the Occupied Palestinian Territory that violate the human rights of the Palestinian people, including [...] the forced displacement of civilians, including attempts at forced transfers of Bedouin communities, the transfer of its own population into the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, > 6. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, cease all of its settlement activities, the construction of the wall and any other measures aimed at altering the character, status and demographic composition of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, all of which, inter alia, gravely and detrimentally impact the human rights of the Palestinian people, including their right to self-determination. > 11. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, comply with its legal obligations under international law, [...] and that it immediately cease the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, dismantle forthwith the structure situated therein, repeal or render ineffective all legislative and regulatory acts relating thereto, and make reparations for all damage caused by the construction of the wall, which has gravely impacted the human rights and the socioeconomic living conditions of the Palestinian people; In, short, paragraphs 2, 6, and 11 of the charter charging Israel for the crimes of occupation, demands that Israel ceases settler colonial activities, and demand 6 even calls cites the rights of self-determination, without witch is almost the definition of colonization. Furthermore, paragraphs 13-17 all deal with economic and structural consequences of colonialism, with demands such as cease its imposition of prolonged closures and economic and movement restrictions, and: > 16. Urges all States and the specialized agencies and organizations of the United Nations system to continue to support and assist the Palestinian people in the early realization of their inalienable human rights, including their right to self-determination, as a matter of urgency, in the light of the passage of more than 55 years of the Israeli occupation Paragraph 10 cites the Security Council Resolution 1860 (2009)[2] (which is ironically a ceasefire resolution) which starts with the paragraph: > Stressing that the Gaza Strip constitutes an integral part of the territory occupied in 1967 and will be a part of the Palestinian state, and ends with: > 8. Calls for renewed and urgent efforts by the parties and the international community to achieve a comprehensive peace based on the vision of a region where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace with secure and recognized border And finally, the decision in paragraph 18 (a) states: > What are the legal consequences arising from the ongoing violation by Israel of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, from its prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and from its adoption of related discriminatory legislation and measures? Which is a description of settler colonialism with occupation. Now if we move to the testimonies delivered earlier this week, they were full of language describing colonization and demands to end it. This includes comparing Israels system to Apartheid, stressing the democratic rights of the Palestinian people, the right of self determination, economic activities prevented by Israel, etc. Colonization is not illegal under international law, so there will never be an ICJ case demanding and end to it. Occupation is however illegal, which is why we have this legal case. The UN does however maintain (albeit rather badly) a list of shame[3] of colonies and colonizers (perhaps considered abandonware at this point). Neither Palestine nor Israel is on that list, it is however clear from the language and resolution at both the ICJ, and the security council (as well as at the Secretary General and the General Assembly; two more Principal Organs of the UN) that Palestine is a colony of Israel, and the UN is not happy about it. 1: https://www.undocs.org/A/RES/77/247 https://www.undocs.org/A/RES/77/247 2: https://undocs.org/en/S/RES/1860(2009) https://undocs.org/en/S/RES/1860(2009) 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_list_of_non-self-governing_territories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_list_of_non-sel...
- runarberg 3y ago
  Aside: The account I’m responding to has been shadow banned since 2017. Now while I appreciate this post gave me a chance to talk about a very nerdy—and IMO interesting—subject of the UN Trusteeship Counsel, and UN policy of decolonization in general, I’m curious why my parent’s post was vouched for. It hardly seems of any better quality than any of the other posts which were flagged.
  - tguvot 3y ago
    Probably because it's of better quality
    - runarberg 3y ago
      Perhaps. The other root posts under this submission are indeed of very bad quality, worthy of the flag even. I’m only a bit puzzled why this was worthy of a vouch. It is not as bad as the others, but it is still ultimately flamebate-y comment about geopolitics with little substance. The only thing nice I can say about it is that it hints (by accident) at an interesting aspect of the United Nations, which we can talk about.
      - tguvot 3y ago
        everything in the eyes of the beholder. maybe many people think that there is a lot of substance in those few words

The implication that the Palestinian cause must balance the State of Israel's governance is insulting and provocative, and sadly is exemplifies UN policy.

by ihsw 3y ago

The implication that the Palestinian cause must balance the State of Israel's governance is insulting and provocative, and sadly is exemplifies UN policy.

runarberg 3y ago

The UN has from its founding been anti-colonial. So much so that one of its six principal (or founding) organs was the Trusteeship Council with the sole aim of granting independence to nations that found them selves colonized after World War 2. Now Palestine didn’t explicitly fall under the Trusteeship, but that is only because Israel declared independence in 1948. Non other then the US (under Truman) actually proposed that Palestine became a Trustee nation under the UN. The UN has largely been successful in its decolonization efforts (demonstrably for the better). I don’t think we give it enough credit for that. So, yes. This does indeed exemplify UN policy. And it is a good policy, which has been proven improve the lives of millions, if not billions, in more ways then we can count.

tguvot 3y ago
well, israel is a great example of decolonization of colonized territory. mission accomplished.
- runarberg 3y ago
  The Trusteeship Council was indeed disbanded in 1994 when they considered their mission finished, following the independence of Palau. So, yes, you can say mission accomplished. However Palestine was never a Trust territory so it was always outside of that specific mission. However it still falls within UN’s greater mission of general decolonization. This is evidenced by one of its other Principal organs—the General Assembly—voting to start a trial at the ICJ (yet another one of its 6 Principle Organs) to see if Israel’s conduct in the occupied territories (including the West Bank and East Jerusalem) constitutes an illegal activity within international law. So, no, UN’s mission to decolonize Palestine is still very much ongoing. And it seems like the vast majority of member nations are not happy with the current state of affairs, and do indeed want greater efforts to be taken to further decolonization of Palestine.
  - tguvot 3y ago
    nope. this territory was already decolonized . nothing to do. occupation or not occupation has nothing to do with colonization. totally different topic.
    - runarberg 3y ago
      Very true, and I must admit my mistake here. Territories can be occupied without being a colony and colonies don’t need to be occupied. My home country of Iceland was a Danish colony with hardly any occupation by Danish forces, and when after independence we were occupied by the British and the Americans, but never a colony of the two. The ICJ case is about the occupation, not the colonization. However the language used in this case is very coded with terms of decolonization. The charter it self[1] for example: > 2. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, cease all measures contrary to international law, as well as discriminatory legislation, policies and actions in the Occupied Palestinian Territory that violate the human rights of the Palestinian people, including [...] the forced displacement of civilians, including attempts at forced transfers of Bedouin communities, the transfer of its own population into the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, > 6. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, cease all of its settlement activities, the construction of the wall and any other measures aimed at altering the character, status and demographic composition of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, all of which, inter alia, gravely and detrimentally impact the human rights of the Palestinian people, including their right to self-determination. > 11. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, comply with its legal obligations under international law, [...] and that it immediately cease the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, dismantle forthwith the structure situated therein, repeal or render ineffective all legislative and regulatory acts relating thereto, and make reparations for all damage caused by the construction of the wall, which has gravely impacted the human rights and the socioeconomic living conditions of the Palestinian people; In, short, paragraphs 2, 6, and 11 of the charter charging Israel for the crimes of occupation, demands that Israel ceases settler colonial activities, and demand 6 even calls cites the rights of self-determination, without witch is almost the definition of colonization. Furthermore, paragraphs 13-17 all deal with economic and structural consequences of colonialism, with demands such as cease its imposition of prolonged closures and economic and movement restrictions, and: > 16. Urges all States and the specialized agencies and organizations of the United Nations system to continue to support and assist the Palestinian people in the early realization of their inalienable human rights, including their right to self-determination, as a matter of urgency, in the light of the passage of more than 55 years of the Israeli occupation Paragraph 10 cites the Security Council Resolution 1860 (2009)[2] (which is ironically a ceasefire resolution) which starts with the paragraph: > Stressing that the Gaza Strip constitutes an integral part of the territory occupied in 1967 and will be a part of the Palestinian state, and ends with: > 8. Calls for renewed and urgent efforts by the parties and the international community to achieve a comprehensive peace based on the vision of a region where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace with secure and recognized border And finally, the decision in paragraph 18 (a) states: > What are the legal consequences arising from the ongoing violation by Israel of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, from its prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and from its adoption of related discriminatory legislation and measures? Which is a description of settler colonialism with occupation. Now if we move to the testimonies delivered earlier this week, they were full of language describing colonization and demands to end it. This includes comparing Israels system to Apartheid, stressing the democratic rights of the Palestinian people, the right of self determination, economic activities prevented by Israel, etc. Colonization is not illegal under international law, so there will never be an ICJ case demanding and end to it. Occupation is however illegal, which is why we have this legal case. The UN does however maintain (albeit rather badly) a list of shame[3] of colonies and colonizers (perhaps considered abandonware at this point). Neither Palestine nor Israel is on that list, it is however clear from the language and resolution at both the ICJ, and the security council (as well as at the Secretary General and the General Assembly; two more Principal Organs of the UN) that Palestine is a colony of Israel, and the UN is not happy about it. 1: https://www.undocs.org/A/RES/77/247 https://www.undocs.org/A/RES/77/247 2: https://undocs.org/en/S/RES/1860(2009) https://undocs.org/en/S/RES/1860(2009) 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_list_of_non-self-governing_territories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_list_of_non-sel...
runarberg 3y ago
Aside: The account I’m responding to has been shadow banned since 2017. Now while I appreciate this post gave me a chance to talk about a very nerdy—and IMO interesting—subject of the UN Trusteeship Counsel, and UN policy of decolonization in general, I’m curious why my parent’s post was vouched for. It hardly seems of any better quality than any of the other posts which were flagged.
- tguvot 3y ago
  Probably because it's of better quality
  - runarberg 3y ago
    Perhaps. The other root posts under this submission are indeed of very bad quality, worthy of the flag even. I’m only a bit puzzled why this was worthy of a vouch. It is not as bad as the others, but it is still ultimately flamebate-y comment about geopolitics with little substance. The only thing nice I can say about it is that it hints (by accident) at an interesting aspect of the United Nations, which we can talk about.
    - tguvot 3y ago
      everything in the eyes of the beholder. maybe many people think that there is a lot of substance in those few words