7 ms·

you are confusing state vs people. from what i see both un charter International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant

by tguvot 3y ago

you are confusing state vs people. from what i see both un charter International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) refer to right to self determination belonging to people. so, do jewish people have right for self determination ? also, do you realize, that nowhere un chater or international laws written that right to self determination implies that state should be given to people ?

runarberg 3y ago
I’m not an expert in international law, but I’m not sure that I am. At the very least this subject is confusing, and we might—very likely—both be confused by it. The right of self determination applies to peoples, not people and not states. What is peoples is another issue which is not clearly defined. But I think of it as a broad category of defined group with some shared cultural heritage, be it ethnic, religious, or culture (but not subculture). LGBTQ+ are peoples, Inuit are peoples, Icelanders are peoples, and so are Israelis, which are separate peoples from Palestinians (also peoples). Jewish people are also peoples, but they are not the same peoples as the Israeli people. Many belong to both peoples, but there are many non-jewish Israelis and much more non-Israeli Jews. In the context of international law you can think of the Palestinian people as both an ethnic group, a group with a shared history and culture, a nation group as well as an indigenous group. As I understand it there is a varying degree of self determination which is granted to each type of group. The right of self determination of internationally recognized nation states is pretty much undisputed at the UN. And since Palestine is one (albeit without control of its territory) the question should be answered. But the UN also has other charters like the rights of indigenous peoples (which Israel did not vote against) which grants the right of self determination to indigenous groups within your territory (in Israel this is at the very least Bedouins; but potentially all Palestinians; the case at the ICJ actually specifies Bedouins in this context). Likewise there are quite a few charters granting the right of self determination to colonized peoples, of which Palestine also qualifies. Now when we speak of Jews as a single ethno-religious group. They are definitely peoples and as such should have some degree of self determination. But within the context of international law, this is pretty limited, probably only to the right to practice free religion (which is sadly more than the Roma people in Europe get). The Jewish people live in many different countries, have very different culture, speak many different languages and are of different ethnicity. If it was up to me, this wouldn’t matter, if they had a shared class interest (which they don’t) they should get the right of self determination (as long as it doesn’t go against the international solidarity of workers). But we are in this UN based world (for better or worse) and as such the nation state trumps all rights of self determination. So the Jewish people as a group will have to settle for the same degree of self determination as every other religious group (except the Roman Catholics) that of free religion within the nation state they live in.
- tguvot 3y ago
  > right of self determination of internationally recognized nation states is >pretty much undisputed at the UN. And since Palestine is one (albeit without >control of its territory) the question should be answered. respectfully, palestine is not internationally recognized as state. is not recognized as member state by security council. it doesn't control it's territory because it has no territory and it has no borders. i don't see in international law or un charter limits on where or how self determination works. under un chater do jews have right for self determination in territory of judea and samaria ?
  - runarberg 3y ago
    It feels like you are arguing with the UN rather than with me. But as I understand it—and my understanding is very limited—I have already answered that question and the answer is no. The strongest form of self determination is that of the nation state. Judea and Samaria are historic territories which precised the UN by around 2000 years, the Jews that live in the historic territories of Judea and Samaria are certainly a group, but certainly not one which equates a nation state. The strongest degree of self determination among this single ethno-religious group inside this historic territory is carried by the state of Israel, which is an internationally recognized state composed of many different peoples (not just Jews). I have a feeling you are trying to direct this discussion towards the prospects of a Jewish ethno-state in some vague historic territories. But such country does not exist. The Khmer Rouge tried to create something similar in the historic territories of the Khmer empire, and committed a horrible genocide while trying so. Israel is not the Jewish Khmer Cambodia. It is composed of more peoples than just Jews. The Khmer rouge had no rights, nor authority to create such a state, and neither do the ethno-fascists in Israel, no matter high up in government they are. The right of self determination does not extend towards the rights to deny others the right to live.
- tptacek 3y ago
  This feels like special pleading. I think you'll find that very few countries have a clean, coherent claim to "nationhood" or native self-determination, and that after a century of pogroms pushed Jewish people from around Asia and Africa to their historic cultural and religious homeland, Israeli Mizrahim have a better claim than most --- certainly better than that of Americans to Tulsa or Cincinatti. I also just don't understand the point of arguing about it. They're not going anywhere. They're extraordinarily well armed, economically productive, and invested in their state. You'd have a better chance of getting us out of Ohio than Israeli citizens out of Tel Aviv.

by tguvot 3y ago

runarberg 3y ago

I’m not an expert in international law, but I’m not sure that I am. At the very least this subject is confusing, and we might—very likely—both be confused by it. The right of self determination applies to peoples, not people and not states. What is peoples is another issue which is not clearly defined. But I think of it as a broad category of defined group with some shared cultural heritage, be it ethnic, religious, or culture (but not subculture). LGBTQ+ are peoples, Inuit are peoples, Icelanders are peoples, and so are Israelis, which are separate peoples from Palestinians (also peoples). Jewish people are also peoples, but they are not the same peoples as the Israeli people. Many belong to both peoples, but there are many non-jewish Israelis and much more non-Israeli Jews. In the context of international law you can think of the Palestinian people as both an ethnic group, a group with a shared history and culture, a nation group as well as an indigenous group. As I understand it there is a varying degree of self determination which is granted to each type of group. The right of self determination of internationally recognized nation states is pretty much undisputed at the UN. And since Palestine is one (albeit without control of its territory) the question should be answered. But the UN also has other charters like the rights of indigenous peoples (which Israel did not vote against) which grants the right of self determination to indigenous groups within your territory (in Israel this is at the very least Bedouins; but potentially all Palestinians; the case at the ICJ actually specifies Bedouins in this context). Likewise there are quite a few charters granting the right of self determination to colonized peoples, of which Palestine also qualifies. Now when we speak of Jews as a single ethno-religious group. They are definitely peoples and as such should have some degree of self determination. But within the context of international law, this is pretty limited, probably only to the right to practice free religion (which is sadly more than the Roma people in Europe get). The Jewish people live in many different countries, have very different culture, speak many different languages and are of different ethnicity. If it was up to me, this wouldn’t matter, if they had a shared class interest (which they don’t) they should get the right of self determination (as long as it doesn’t go against the international solidarity of workers). But we are in this UN based world (for better or worse) and as such the nation state trumps all rights of self determination. So the Jewish people as a group will have to settle for the same degree of self determination as every other religious group (except the Roman Catholics) that of free religion within the nation state they live in.

tguvot 3y ago
> right of self determination of internationally recognized nation states is >pretty much undisputed at the UN. And since Palestine is one (albeit without >control of its territory) the question should be answered. respectfully, palestine is not internationally recognized as state. is not recognized as member state by security council. it doesn't control it's territory because it has no territory and it has no borders. i don't see in international law or un charter limits on where or how self determination works. under un chater do jews have right for self determination in territory of judea and samaria ?
- runarberg 3y ago
  It feels like you are arguing with the UN rather than with me. But as I understand it—and my understanding is very limited—I have already answered that question and the answer is no. The strongest form of self determination is that of the nation state. Judea and Samaria are historic territories which precised the UN by around 2000 years, the Jews that live in the historic territories of Judea and Samaria are certainly a group, but certainly not one which equates a nation state. The strongest degree of self determination among this single ethno-religious group inside this historic territory is carried by the state of Israel, which is an internationally recognized state composed of many different peoples (not just Jews). I have a feeling you are trying to direct this discussion towards the prospects of a Jewish ethno-state in some vague historic territories. But such country does not exist. The Khmer Rouge tried to create something similar in the historic territories of the Khmer empire, and committed a horrible genocide while trying so. Israel is not the Jewish Khmer Cambodia. It is composed of more peoples than just Jews. The Khmer rouge had no rights, nor authority to create such a state, and neither do the ethno-fascists in Israel, no matter high up in government they are. The right of self determination does not extend towards the rights to deny others the right to live.
tptacek 3y ago
This feels like special pleading. I think you'll find that very few countries have a clean, coherent claim to "nationhood" or native self-determination, and that after a century of pogroms pushed Jewish people from around Asia and Africa to their historic cultural and religious homeland, Israeli Mizrahim have a better claim than most --- certainly better than that of Americans to Tulsa or Cincinatti. I also just don't understand the point of arguing about it. They're not going anywhere. They're extraordinarily well armed, economically productive, and invested in their state. You'd have a better chance of getting us out of Ohio than Israeli citizens out of Tel Aviv.