5 ms·

nope. this territory was already decolonized . nothing to do. occupation or not occupation has nothing to do with colonization. totally different topic.

by tguvot 3y ago

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...
- tguvot 3y ago
  What Palestine? I am not familiar with such country
  - runarberg 3y ago
    These are the words of the UN General Assembly, not mine. However I do believe they refer mostly to the Palestinian People (not country) and the prospect of a Palestinian state. Furthermore, they refer to occupied territories and not the occupied country of Palestine, so I don’t see your confusion. I’m assuming, off course, that you recognize the existence of the Palestinian people and their possibility that there may be a Palestinian state. Otherwise I’m not sure I should be responding to this.
    - tguvot 3y ago
      sounds confusing. do jewish people have right of self determination ?
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - runarberg 3y ago
        Very interesting question (albeit a bit irrelevant). But the short answer is no, or at least not as a single group within the context of international law. There is no internationally recognized state which represents all Jewish people, therefor they don’t have the right of self determination. The state of Israel does, but it only represents Israeli citizens and to a lesser extends residents within Israel (not including its occupied territories), and certainly not all Jewish people in the world. But Israeli citizens do have the right of self determination as a group, which they have been exorcising (quite brutally for that matter) since 1948. A note here, that the question of self determination is again the words of the UN General Assembly, I have my own thoughts on it, which I try not to steer into, as this is already irrelevant to the question of decolonization efforts exemplifying the United Nations. Like Israel, the Palestinian people also have an internationally recognized right to self determination, which is recognized by 139 of the 193 UN member states (including my home country of Iceland; Israel only has 27 more countries which recognize their statehood). They don’t get to exorcise this right as often as they would like to as many aspects of their statehood is controlled by Israel (which we were frequently reminded of in the ICJ testimonies this week; and talked about above). One could—confusingly—argue that Catholics do have the right to self determination, as they do have an internationally recognized state representing them, but in practice (and de jure) it is merely the very senior rulers of the religion that live and work in the Vatican, which have that right. But not every nation gets the same right of self determination. American Indians, famously have a very limited right of self determination, the Roma people in Europe get hardly any. Inuit in Greenland have much more than Inuit in Nunavut. The Tatars in Crimea don’t get it, but the Russian speakers in the same territory only get it via Russia while internationally it is recognized they should get it via Ukraine. The self determination of the Taiwanese people is even more complicated. My personal feelings about the right of self determination is that it should not belong to nations, but rather by classes belonging to an international solidarity of workers. However we do live in this UN based world as determined by the winners of World War 2, and they say the right to self determination belongs to internationally recognized nation states. Both Israel and Palestine are one, so legally speaking, they should both have their own separate right to self determination. But in reality Israel denies Palestine of that right.

nope. this territory was already decolonized . nothing to do. occupation or not occupation has nothing to do with colonization. totally different topic.

by 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...

tguvot 3y ago
What Palestine? I am not familiar with such country
- runarberg 3y ago
  These are the words of the UN General Assembly, not mine. However I do believe they refer mostly to the Palestinian People (not country) and the prospect of a Palestinian state. Furthermore, they refer to occupied territories and not the occupied country of Palestine, so I don’t see your confusion. I’m assuming, off course, that you recognize the existence of the Palestinian people and their possibility that there may be a Palestinian state. Otherwise I’m not sure I should be responding to this.
  - tguvot 3y ago
    sounds confusing. do jewish people have right of self determination ?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - runarberg 3y ago
      Very interesting question (albeit a bit irrelevant). But the short answer is no, or at least not as a single group within the context of international law. There is no internationally recognized state which represents all Jewish people, therefor they don’t have the right of self determination. The state of Israel does, but it only represents Israeli citizens and to a lesser extends residents within Israel (not including its occupied territories), and certainly not all Jewish people in the world. But Israeli citizens do have the right of self determination as a group, which they have been exorcising (quite brutally for that matter) since 1948. A note here, that the question of self determination is again the words of the UN General Assembly, I have my own thoughts on it, which I try not to steer into, as this is already irrelevant to the question of decolonization efforts exemplifying the United Nations. Like Israel, the Palestinian people also have an internationally recognized right to self determination, which is recognized by 139 of the 193 UN member states (including my home country of Iceland; Israel only has 27 more countries which recognize their statehood). They don’t get to exorcise this right as often as they would like to as many aspects of their statehood is controlled by Israel (which we were frequently reminded of in the ICJ testimonies this week; and talked about above). One could—confusingly—argue that Catholics do have the right to self determination, as they do have an internationally recognized state representing them, but in practice (and de jure) it is merely the very senior rulers of the religion that live and work in the Vatican, which have that right. But not every nation gets the same right of self determination. American Indians, famously have a very limited right of self determination, the Roma people in Europe get hardly any. Inuit in Greenland have much more than Inuit in Nunavut. The Tatars in Crimea don’t get it, but the Russian speakers in the same territory only get it via Russia while internationally it is recognized they should get it via Ukraine. The self determination of the Taiwanese people is even more complicated. My personal feelings about the right of self determination is that it should not belong to nations, but rather by classes belonging to an international solidarity of workers. However we do live in this UN based world as determined by the winners of World War 2, and they say the right to self determination belongs to internationally recognized nation states. Both Israel and Palestine are one, so legally speaking, they should both have their own separate right to self determination. But in reality Israel denies Palestine of that right.