Hacker News Reader

Comment by tguvot | Hacker News Reader

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) ?

View on HN

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.

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 ?

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.

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.

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, but all of them are indeed “illegal” under international law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement

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.

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!)!

[delayed]

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.

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 ?

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.

i am not talking about neo kahanists. i am talking about jews in general. and lets say samaritans. can they exercise right to self determination ?

> The Samaritans (/səˈmærɪtənz/; Samaritan Hebrew: ࠔࠠࠌࠝࠓࠩࠉࠌ‎ Šā̊merīm; Hebrew: שומרונים Šōmrōnīm; Arabic: السامريون as-Sāmiriyyūn), or the Samaritan people, are an ethnoreligious group originating from the Hebrews and Israelites of the ancient Near East.[2] They are indigenous to Samaria, a historical region of ancient Israel and Judah that comprises the northern half of today's West Bank. They are naturally adherents of Samaritanism, an Abrahamic, monotheistic, and ethnic religion that developed alongside Judaism, although the two differ in a number of important aspects in spite of sharing a common foundation in Yahwism.

> 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.

yes, i am talking about samaritans who live in samaria. can you explain why they have right of minority but not right to self determination as palestinians ? according to un this right is universal for all people.

Not in the West Bank, which is outside the 1967 boundaries of the state of Israel and is the homeland of the Palestinian people, who have a right to self-determination within their own land.

samaritans live continuously in samaria for 2000+ years. it's their homeland. jews live continuously in samaria and judea for 2000+ years (with some pause in 1948-1967 when they were ethnically cleansed by jordans. it's their homeland as well.

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.

> samaritans live continuously in samaria for 2000+ years.

Home land of both the peoples, then? Looking more like a one-state reality to me.

I stopped engaging with your parent because they were not arguing in good faith. The post you were replying to is an example of Motte-and-bailey fallacy. The only reason they are talking about the Samaritans is because they failed argue that West Bank Settlers have any right to the land, so they turned to the much more reasonable argument that an indigenous religious minority should have rights as a group.

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...]

In 1967 it was [occupied by Israel] and Jordan renounced it's rights to this territory in 1980 or 1988.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com