Arms exports to Israel must stop immediately: UN experts(ohchr.org)
ohchr.org
Arms exports to Israel must stop immediately: UN experts
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/02/arms-exports-israel-must-stop-immediately-un-experts
55 comments
Archived: http://web.archive.org/web/20240223160138/https://www.ohchr....
I was not raised in the marvellous West to be a supporter of bombing and killing childrens in Gaza, but now it seems the international laws are only to be respected if USA and friends are not breaking them.
Disgusting. Tell me again we are the champions of democracy...
The implication that the Palestinian cause must balance the State of Israel's governance is insulting and provocative, and sadly is exemplifies UN policy.
The UN has from its founding been anti-colonial. So much so that one of its six principal (or founding) organs was the Trusteeship Council with the sole aim of granting independence to nations that found them selves colonized after World War 2.
Now Palestine didn’t explicitly fall under the Trusteeship, but that is only because Israel declared independence in 1948. Non other then the US (under Truman) actually proposed that Palestine became a Trustee nation under the UN.
The UN has largely been successful in its decolonization efforts (demonstrably for the better). I don’t think we give it enough credit for that.
So, yes. This does indeed exemplify UN policy. And it is a good policy, which has been proven improve the lives of millions, if not billions, in more ways then we can count.
Now Palestine didn’t explicitly fall under the Trusteeship, but that is only because Israel declared independence in 1948. Non other then the US (under Truman) actually proposed that Palestine became a Trustee nation under the UN.
The UN has largely been successful in its decolonization efforts (demonstrably for the better). I don’t think we give it enough credit for that.
So, yes. This does indeed exemplify UN policy. And it is a good policy, which has been proven improve the lives of millions, if not billions, in more ways then we can count.
Aside:
The account I’m responding to has been shadow banned since 2017. Now while I appreciate this post gave me a chance to talk about a very nerdy—and IMO interesting—subject of the UN Trusteeship Counsel, and UN policy of decolonization in general, I’m curious why my parent’s post was vouched for. It hardly seems of any better quality than any of the other posts which were flagged.
The account I’m responding to has been shadow banned since 2017. Now while I appreciate this post gave me a chance to talk about a very nerdy—and IMO interesting—subject of the UN Trusteeship Counsel, and UN policy of decolonization in general, I’m curious why my parent’s post was vouched for. It hardly seems of any better quality than any of the other posts which were flagged.
Probably because it's of better quality
Perhaps. The other root posts under this submission are indeed of very bad quality, worthy of the flag even. I’m only a bit puzzled why this was worthy of a vouch. It is not as bad as the others, but it is still ultimately flamebate-y comment about geopolitics with little substance. The only thing nice I can say about it is that it hints (by accident) at an interesting aspect of the United Nations, which we can talk about.
everything in the eyes of the beholder. maybe many people think that there is a lot of substance in those few words
well, israel is a great example of decolonization of colonized territory. mission accomplished.
The Trusteeship Council was indeed disbanded in 1994 when they considered their mission finished, following the independence of Palau. So, yes, you can say mission accomplished.
However Palestine was never a Trust territory so it was always outside of that specific mission. However it still falls within UN’s greater mission of general decolonization. This is evidenced by one of its other Principal organs—the General Assembly—voting to start a trial at the ICJ (yet another one of its 6 Principle Organs) to see if Israel’s conduct in the occupied territories (including the West Bank and East Jerusalem) constitutes an illegal activity within international law.
So, no, UN’s mission to decolonize Palestine is still very much ongoing. And it seems like the vast majority of member nations are not happy with the current state of affairs, and do indeed want greater efforts to be taken to further decolonization of Palestine.
However Palestine was never a Trust territory so it was always outside of that specific mission. However it still falls within UN’s greater mission of general decolonization. This is evidenced by one of its other Principal organs—the General Assembly—voting to start a trial at the ICJ (yet another one of its 6 Principle Organs) to see if Israel’s conduct in the occupied territories (including the West Bank and East Jerusalem) constitutes an illegal activity within international law.
So, no, UN’s mission to decolonize Palestine is still very much ongoing. And it seems like the vast majority of member nations are not happy with the current state of affairs, and do indeed want greater efforts to be taken to further decolonization of Palestine.
nope. this territory was already decolonized . nothing to do.
occupation or not occupation has nothing to do with colonization. totally different topic.
occupation or not occupation has nothing to do with colonization. totally different topic.
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
2: https://undocs.org/en/S/RES/1860(2009)
3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_list_of_non-sel...
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
2: https://undocs.org/en/S/RES/1860(2009)
3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_list_of_non-sel...
What Palestine? I am not familiar with such country
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.
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.
sounds confusing.
do jewish people have right of self determination ?
do jewish people have right of self determination ?
Do white people had right of self determination in apartheid South Africa? Did that give them the right to treat black people the way they were treated?
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 without any restriction on grouping or locations.
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.
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.
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 ?
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 ?
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.
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.
[deleted]
Do jewish people have right of self determination?
In the sense that all peoples have the right of self-determination - of course, unquestionably.
As to whether that applies to the self-determination in the sense of a viable community within the boundaries historic Palestine? You know the answer already, of course. As per the Balfour declaration, as long as it is:
clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine
In the sense that all peoples have the right of self-determination - of course, unquestionably.
As to whether that applies to the self-determination in the sense of a viable community within the boundaries historic Palestine? You know the answer already, of course. As per the Balfour declaration, as long as it is:
clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine
i dont think that balfour declaration has any relevance in modern "international law".
but given that you opened this topic, under international law, un charter, etc, do jewish people have right of self determination in judea and samaria ?
but given that you opened this topic, under international law, un charter, etc, do jewish people have right of self determination in judea and samaria ?
Do jewish people have right of self determination in judea and samaria?
The international community does not recognize "Judea and Samaria" as a jurisdiction. So the question is moot.
Further, what you're getting at is a question of sovereignty -- which has nothing to do with religious belief or cultural identity, per se. Which makes the question doubly moot.
The international community does not recognize "Judea and Samaria" as a jurisdiction. So the question is moot.
Further, what you're getting at is a question of sovereignty -- which has nothing to do with religious belief or cultural identity, per se. Which makes the question doubly moot.
ottoman empire and subdivisions of syria and something. literally written in the link
jfengel(1)
CrzyLngPwd(1)
hersko(5)
ericfrazier(2)