4 ms·

I don’t think we are arguing about it (at least I’m not). This whole thread since the mentioning of self-determination has been a distraction (and not an intere

I don’t think we are arguing about it (at least I’m not). This whole thread since the mentioning of self-determination has been a distraction (and not an interesting one; all I wanted to talk about was the UN policy for decolonization). My parent was asking about the right of self determination of the Jewish people in the context of the UN general assembly demanding that Israel grants this right the Palestinian people, living under its occupied territories. And I’m trying to convey—and I might even be wrong about this—that the right of self-determination of an ethno-religious group that lives across many and diverse set of states and are citizens of equally many, does not have the same right of self-determination, under the current UN based international order, as nation states (such as Palestine) do. This is until a bit later when my parent’s posts (your sibling post) started hinting at the potential for a Jewish ethno-state within vague historic territories, which I’m hoping is a misunderstanding on my part.

tptacek 3y ago
Right, I'd be coming at you with the reasoning for Israeli citizens having the same rights of self-determination as Palestinians. We almost certainly agree about the right to self-determination outside the '67 borders of Israel, in Gaza and the West Bank. But inside those borders, Israel's claims, whether you want to frame them as "nationhood" or something else, are as strong as any in the region, and stronger than those of America. I don't think any of the reasoning is as simple as "the Levant is the historic homeland of the Jewish people"; I think it's a complicated and deeper mess than that. If you're not saying that Israelis have a lesser claim to self-determination within the '67 borders than Palestinians do, we're just on the same page. :)
- runarberg 3y ago
  Those aren’t in dispute in the UN charter we are talking about, nor in the broader case at the ICJ asking about the legal consequences of the occupation, nor at most other current decolonization efforts at the UN for the prospect of a Palestinian state. The UN isn’t demanding a free Palestine from the river to the sea. The ceasefire resolution from 2009 [1; paragraph 8] even states: “the vision of a region where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace with secure and recognized border” The right of self determination of Israelis, living within the internationally recognized borders of the independent state of Israel, is never questioned at the UN level. When I wrote the post which you originally replied to, I was working under the suspicion that my parent wasn’t arguing in good faith (a suspicion which was reinforced downthread) and I was trying really hard to not steer this conversation into this direction, only focusing on how the UN deals with the right of self-determination within the context of decolonization. I can see that I failed. 1: https://undocs.org/en/S/RES/1860(2009) https://undocs.org/en/S/RES/1860(2009)
  - tptacek 3y ago
    Not so much! We might just be on the same page. It's a tricky topic, gotta give it a lot of extra breathing room for misunderstandings. (Which, for all I know, I caused here!)
tguvot 3y ago
i never mentioned words ethno state or state. i was talking purely about self determination. 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. not to nations, religions, etc like you try to imply all the time. but to people. it also doesn't say about where this self determination can take place neither limits it (actually millenium act or something puts sovereignty of state above right of self determination iirc). hence was my question, can jewish people in your opinion exercise universal right of self determination in territory of judea and samaria (it's not vague territory, it's very specific territory) ?
- tptacek 3y ago
  Judea and Samaria, also known as the West Bank, territory annexed during the 1967 war? And, by "Jewish people", do you mean citizens of Israel? Seems like the answer there is an easy "no", right? The 2-state strategy implies Palestinian control and self-determination within the West Bank and Gaza.
  - tguvot 3y ago
    west bank is a new speak. it was annexed by jordan till 1967. in 1967 it was liberated and jordan renounced it's rights to this territory in 1980 or 1988. not citizens of israel but jews. 2-states strategy not really in un charter or ICCPR or ICESCR. right to self determination of people is, without limits or definition where this right can be exercised. so, you say, that you oppose "universal right of self-determination" ? or you think that some people have more right to do it and some less ?
    - tptacek 3y ago
      I didn't support the right of the Branch Davidians to create a theocratic state in Waco, TX, and I don't support the right of neo-Kahanists to do the same thing in the West Bank.
      - 3y ago

tptacek 3y ago

Right, I'd be coming at you with the reasoning for Israeli citizens having the same rights of self-determination as Palestinians. We almost certainly agree about the right to self-determination outside the '67 borders of Israel, in Gaza and the West Bank. But inside those borders, Israel's claims, whether you want to frame them as "nationhood" or something else, are as strong as any in the region, and stronger than those of America. I don't think any of the reasoning is as simple as "the Levant is the historic homeland of the Jewish people"; I think it's a complicated and deeper mess than that. If you're not saying that Israelis have a lesser claim to self-determination within the '67 borders than Palestinians do, we're just on the same page. :)

runarberg 3y ago
Those aren’t in dispute in the UN charter we are talking about, nor in the broader case at the ICJ asking about the legal consequences of the occupation, nor at most other current decolonization efforts at the UN for the prospect of a Palestinian state. The UN isn’t demanding a free Palestine from the river to the sea. The ceasefire resolution from 2009 [1; paragraph 8] even states: “the vision of a region where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace with secure and recognized border” The right of self determination of Israelis, living within the internationally recognized borders of the independent state of Israel, is never questioned at the UN level. When I wrote the post which you originally replied to, I was working under the suspicion that my parent wasn’t arguing in good faith (a suspicion which was reinforced downthread) and I was trying really hard to not steer this conversation into this direction, only focusing on how the UN deals with the right of self-determination within the context of decolonization. I can see that I failed. 1: https://undocs.org/en/S/RES/1860(2009) https://undocs.org/en/S/RES/1860(2009)
- tptacek 3y ago
  Not so much! We might just be on the same page. It's a tricky topic, gotta give it a lot of extra breathing room for misunderstandings. (Which, for all I know, I caused here!)

tguvot 3y ago

i never mentioned words ethno state or state. i was talking purely about self determination. 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. not to nations, religions, etc like you try to imply all the time. but to people. it also doesn't say about where this self determination can take place neither limits it (actually millenium act or something puts sovereignty of state above right of self determination iirc). hence was my question, can jewish people in your opinion exercise universal right of self determination in territory of judea and samaria (it's not vague territory, it's very specific territory) ?

tptacek 3y ago
Judea and Samaria, also known as the West Bank, territory annexed during the 1967 war? And, by "Jewish people", do you mean citizens of Israel? Seems like the answer there is an easy "no", right? The 2-state strategy implies Palestinian control and self-determination within the West Bank and Gaza.
- tguvot 3y ago
  west bank is a new speak. it was annexed by jordan till 1967. in 1967 it was liberated and jordan renounced it's rights to this territory in 1980 or 1988. not citizens of israel but jews. 2-states strategy not really in un charter or ICCPR or ICESCR. right to self determination of people is, without limits or definition where this right can be exercised. so, you say, that you oppose "universal right of self-determination" ? or you think that some people have more right to do it and some less ?
  - tptacek 3y ago
    I didn't support the right of the Branch Davidians to create a theocratic state in Waco, TX, and I don't support the right of neo-Kahanists to do the same thing in the West Bank.
    - 3y ago