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 ?
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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. :)
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.
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) ?
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 ?
> As of 2022, the Samaritan community is estimated to number around 874 people, split almost evenly between Israel (some 460 in Holon) and the Israeli-occupied West Bank (some 380 in Kiryat Luza).
> All Samaritans in both Holon and Kiryat Luza are Israeli citizens, but those in Kiryat Luza also hold Palestinian citizenship.
> Much of the local Palestinian population of Nablus is believed to be descended from Samaritans who converted to Islam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritans
Sorry, but I don’t think you are talking about the Samaritans. And if you are, they are totally irrelevant to our conversation. But the short answer would be, they should have the rights of an indigenous or a religious minority within a broader region.
so how is that in your only palestinians can do it ? is the right of self determination does not apply to samaritans and jews, only to palestinians ?
un charter on self determination or other treaties that i referenced says nothing about location of self determination, btw. there is only right to self determination. not to land. not to state.
Home land of both the peoples, then? Looking more like a one-state reality to me.
Note that this etno-religious minority numbers fewer than a 1000 people, only about 400 live in the occupied West Bank (and honestly, I haven’t asked them, but I would be very surprised if they were happy with the occupation). It is obvious from the early points that parent was arguing for something with much grander stakes than this tiny minority.
Not only that but your parent explicitly mentioned Jewish people earlier (obviously referring to illegal settlers), while from what I know about the Samaritan minority is that their religion related to Judaism while still distinct, so I question whether it is actually accurate to refer to them as Jewish.
In other threads your parent actually crossed the line and started attacking me as a person. Wrongly claiming my position is pro-colonial https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39497508 Which kind of feels like the poster is trying to Kafkatrap[1] me.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#[[wikt:Kafka...]
Which by no means conveys any rights to Israel, as Jordan's occupation of the territory was also illegal and unrecognized from the very beginning.
*So, you say, that you oppose "universal right of self-determination"?*
No one has a right to "self-determine" themselves on land to which they hold no legal claim.
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.
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 ?
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.
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, but all of them are indeed “illegal” under international law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement
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.