5 ms·

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

by 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
  first of all, Judea and Samaria are historical names and predate establishment of state of Israel and it administrative division. This naming is also used by UN and going back for example to 1947 UN Partition plan: "the boundary of the hill country of Samaria and Judea starts on the Jordan River...". Denying those names is denying actual history. Denying this naming is literally supporting colonial enterprises of roman and ottoman empires who tried to remove memory of people who inhibited (continuously, i may add) this area. . Shame on you. Actually double shame, given your position against colonialism. But I guess it's selective position. Second, you proved what other poster said about Palestinian cause. In your eyes rights of palestinians superior to rights of other people per UN charter and other international treaties. Shame on you I find it troubling, that Samaritan people who live in area called Samaria for more than 2000 years continuously have according to you less rights than palestinians (who started to self identify only like 100 years ago). Shame on you.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    And you're usurping Canaan from its rightful oversight by the followers of Dagon, almighty fish-god of Philippi. Shame on you! Hail Dagon (glub! glub! glub!)!
    - runarberg 3y ago
      [delayed]

by tguvot 3y ago

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
first of all, Judea and Samaria are historical names and predate establishment of state of Israel and it administrative division. This naming is also used by UN and going back for example to 1947 UN Partition plan: "the boundary of the hill country of Samaria and Judea starts on the Jordan River...". Denying those names is denying actual history. Denying this naming is literally supporting colonial enterprises of roman and ottoman empires who tried to remove memory of people who inhibited (continuously, i may add) this area. . Shame on you. Actually double shame, given your position against colonialism. But I guess it's selective position. Second, you proved what other poster said about Palestinian cause. In your eyes rights of palestinians superior to rights of other people per UN charter and other international treaties. Shame on you I find it troubling, that Samaritan people who live in area called Samaria for more than 2000 years continuously have according to you less rights than palestinians (who started to self identify only like 100 years ago). Shame on you.
- tptacek 3y ago
  And you're usurping Canaan from its rightful oversight by the followers of Dagon, almighty fish-god of Philippi. Shame on you! Hail Dagon (glub! glub! glub!)!
  - runarberg 3y ago
    [delayed]