3 ms·

So perhaps this was (thankfully) a misunderstanding on my part. The right of self-determination which the UN general assembly is talking about is that of the Pa

So perhaps this was (thankfully) a misunderstanding on my part. The right of self-determination which the UN general assembly is talking about is that of the Palestinan nation, which belong to an international nation state with defined borders. When you asked about the right of self determination of the Jewish people, I answered based on the same level as that which the UN General Assembly was talking about. I was trying to be very clear on that. When you then talk about Judea and Samaria, which are indeed historic territories, and indeed vague compared to the specific territories the UN General Assembly is talking about. Judea and Samaria existed as an actual territory of nations which were at some point independent, colonies, then occupied, then ethnically cleansed, regions of empires, etc. The boarders over the thousands of years have shifted significantly. The people living in these territories have shifted religion, language, national affiliations, etc. many times over. And the people living inside these territories haven’t called it by those names for like 1500 years at least. But more importantly, neither Judea nor Samaria are UN recognized territories, with any special status what so ever. Now there is a subdivision within Israel which is named Judea and Samaria Area. This is not internationally recognized subdivision (not even by nations which recognize Israel as a state). Within the UN this area is called The West Bank and is internationally recognized to be a Palestinian territory occupied by Israel. When you talk about the self determination of the Jewish people in that area, within the context of decolonization efforts by the UN, and when you use the name of its colonizers of this area, it does sound like you are talking about excluding this right of the actual nation state which already lives there and is internationally recognized owner of. This is an oft cited prospect of ethno-facists within the Israeli government, to ethnically cleanse the territory of its internationally recognized inhabitants (the Palestinians) and reserve it for Jews alone. This might not be your intention, but this is what I heard.

tguvot 3y ago
general assembly talks a lot of shit. i am talking un charter, ICCPR and ICESCR which are "international law", if you may say so. i am not excluding anybody or anything. I am just asking you if jewish people per "un charter, ICCPR and ICESCR" which declare "that people have universal right of self determination" can exercise this right in judea in samaria ? yes or no ? I am just asking you if samaritan people per "un charter, ICCPR and ICESCR" which declare "that people have universal right of self determination" can exercise this right in judea in samaria ? yes or no ? I am just asking you if palestinian people per "un charter, ICCPR and ICESCR" which declare "that people have universal right of self determination" can exercise this right in judea in samaria ? yes or no ?
- runarberg 3y ago
  I think I’ve answered that question a couple of time already. No, no, and yes (as long as you call it the West Bank and belonging to a Palestinian state free of Israeli occupation). The settlements in the West Bank are illegal under international law. This ICJ case is about determining the consequences of Israel for allowing these settlements. The demands of the General Assembly (cited above) was for Israel to stop expanding these settlements. In general the very existence of Judea and Samaria Area as an Israeli subdivision is precisely the kind of colonial enterprise which the UN has been working to dismantle since its founding in 1945.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    For my part, I don't know that "illegal" means much, but morally, Israel has no real claim to the land; their settlement of the West Bank harms the legitimacy of the state within its original borders. In "Judea and Samaria", Jewish people are a minority abetted by an external military force; they are, in those places, occupiers.
    - runarberg 3y ago
      I actually don’t know what “illegal” means either, as I’m not an expert—and not even a layperson—of international law (really I’m just a fanboy of decolonization, and appreciate the UN as one of many groups working on different strategies and succeeding in liberating colonized peoples). The only thing I do know is that the UN describes these settlements as illegal, so I parrot it, as it fits my narrative. I believe illegal has something to do with the illegal occupation and international agreements which Israel has signed and since broken (e.g. the transfer of civilian population to and from occupied territories) by allowing these settlements to materialize, persist and proliferate. Some of these settlements are even illegal under Israeli law, but are still allowed to persist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_outpost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_outpost, but all of them are indeed “illegal” under international law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement
  - tguvot 3y ago

tguvot 3y ago

general assembly talks a lot of shit. i am talking un charter, ICCPR and ICESCR which are "international law", if you may say so. i am not excluding anybody or anything. I am just asking you if jewish people per "un charter, ICCPR and ICESCR" which declare "that people have universal right of self determination" can exercise this right in judea in samaria ? yes or no ? I am just asking you if samaritan people per "un charter, ICCPR and ICESCR" which declare "that people have universal right of self determination" can exercise this right in judea in samaria ? yes or no ? I am just asking you if palestinian people per "un charter, ICCPR and ICESCR" which declare "that people have universal right of self determination" can exercise this right in judea in samaria ? yes or no ?

runarberg 3y ago
I think I’ve answered that question a couple of time already. No, no, and yes (as long as you call it the West Bank and belonging to a Palestinian state free of Israeli occupation). The settlements in the West Bank are illegal under international law. This ICJ case is about determining the consequences of Israel for allowing these settlements. The demands of the General Assembly (cited above) was for Israel to stop expanding these settlements. In general the very existence of Judea and Samaria Area as an Israeli subdivision is precisely the kind of colonial enterprise which the UN has been working to dismantle since its founding in 1945.
- tptacek 3y ago
  For my part, I don't know that "illegal" means much, but morally, Israel has no real claim to the land; their settlement of the West Bank harms the legitimacy of the state within its original borders. In "Judea and Samaria", Jewish people are a minority abetted by an external military force; they are, in those places, occupiers.
  - runarberg 3y ago
    I actually don’t know what “illegal” means either, as I’m not an expert—and not even a layperson—of international law (really I’m just a fanboy of decolonization, and appreciate the UN as one of many groups working on different strategies and succeeding in liberating colonized peoples). The only thing I do know is that the UN describes these settlements as illegal, so I parrot it, as it fits my narrative. I believe illegal has something to do with the illegal occupation and international agreements which Israel has signed and since broken (e.g. the transfer of civilian population to and from occupied territories) by allowing these settlements to materialize, persist and proliferate. Some of these settlements are even illegal under Israeli law, but are still allowed to persist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_outpost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_outpost, but all of them are indeed “illegal” under international law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement
- tguvot 3y ago