US Presbyterian c'tee approves Israel divestment

[Reffo]

Chapter 1, Article 1, part 2 states that purpose of the UN Charter is: "To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace."[12]
Article 1 in both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)[13] and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).[14] Both read: "All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."
The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 15 states that everyone has the right to a nationality and that no one should be arbitrarily deprived of a nationality or denied the right to change nationality.
However, the charter and other resolutions did not insist on full independence as the best way of obtaining self-government, nor did they include an enforcement mechanism. Moreover, new states were recognized by the legal doctrine of uti possidetis juris, meaning that old administrative boundaries would become international boundaries upon independence even if they had little relevance to linguistic, ethnic, and cultural boundaries.[15][16] Nevertheless, justified by the language of self-determination, between 1946 and 1960, the peoples of thirty-seven new nations freed themselves from colonial status in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.[2][17][18] The territoriality issue inevitably would lead to more conflicts and independence movements within many states and challenges to the assumption that territorial integrity is as important as self-determination.[15]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-...tion#section_1

the Item in bold qualifies it all.

[curlyg]

Chapter 1, Article 1, part 2 states that purpose of the UN Charter is: "To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace."[12]
Article 1 in both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)[13] and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).[14] Both read: "All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."
The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 15 states that everyone has the right to a nationality and that no one should be arbitrarily deprived of a nationality or denied the right to change nationality.
However, the charter and other resolutions did not insist on full independence as the best way of obtaining self-government, nor did they include an enforcement mechanism. Moreover, new states were recognized by the legal doctrine of uti possidetis juris, meaning that old administrative boundaries would become international boundaries upon independence even if they had little relevance to linguistic, ethnic, and cultural boundaries.[15][16] Nevertheless, justified by the language of self-determination, between 1946 and 1960, the peoples of thirty-seven new nations freed themselves from colonial status in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.[2][17][18] The territoriality issue inevitably would lead to more conflicts and independence movements within many states and challenges to the assumption that territorial integrity is as important as self-determination.[15]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-...tion#section_1

the Item in bold qualifies it all.

Not really. There are some interesting debates about self-determination, internal vs external etc, but no contemporary international lawyer would dispute that it is a universal human right of all peoples today.

In the case of Palestinians, internal self-determination as part of Israel is not an option (Israel doesn't want them and they don't want Israel).

If you want what I think is a decent starting point for thinking about self-determination under modern international law, I would take a look here:

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/16005.pdf

For a contrary view, here (paras 21-25):

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/15991.pdf

But again, most of this discussion doesn't apply to Israel and the Palestinian territories because Israel doesn't claim those territories and so their independence would not infringe on Israel's territorial integrity.

[Reffo]

Not really. There are some interesting debates about self-determination, internal vs external etc, but no contemporary international lawyer would dispute that it is a universal human right of all peoples today.

In the case of Palestinians, internal self-determination as part of Israel is not an option (Israel doesn't want them and they don't want Israel)

The item in bold in my post #31 talks in generalities. It is not about the Palestinian Arabs exclusively. But if you still disagree with it then perhaps you could tell me why isn't the world jumping up and down about independence and self determination for:

• The Basques
• The Catalans
• The Berbers
• The Kurds
• Western Saharans

Just to name a few? They too, like the Palestinians want their independent states and self determination.

[curlyg]

The item in bold in my post #31 talks in generalities. It is not about the Palestinian Arabs exclusively. But if you still disagree with it then perhaps you could tell me why isn't the world jumping up and down about independence and self determination for:

• The Basques
• The Catalans
• The Berbers
• The Kurds
• Western Saharans

Just to name a few? They too, like the Palestinians want their independent states and self determination.

I'm not sure I follow what you're getting at. Are you saying that because states give different levels of support to different self-determination movements, it's not a right under international law...? Correct me if I'm wrong, I was responding to dayag's comment that not ALL peoples have a right to self-determination under international law, which is incorrect.

[Reffo]

I'm not sure I follow what you're getting at. Are you saying that because states give different levels of support to different self-determination movements, it's not a right under international law...? Correct me if I'm wrong, I was responding to dayag's comment that not ALL peoples have a right to self-determination under international law, which is incorrect.

Clearly you responded to my post because you addressed me by name.

I presented a quote, which qualified what is meant by the right to self determination. It appeared that you disagreed with what was in my post. Hence my second post.

[dayag]

I'm not sure I follow what you're getting at. Are you saying that because states give different levels of support to different self-determination movements, it's not a right under international law...? Correct me if I'm wrong, I was responding to dayag's comment that not ALL peoples have a right to self-determination under international law, which is incorrect.

In your opinion. I don't think this was ever intended to give any ethnic group that wants it independence. This would open the world, most especially Africa to complete turmoil, irredentism, and war.

[Madeline]

In your opinion. I don't think this was ever intended to give any ethnic group that wants it independence. This would open the world, most especially Africa to complete turmoil, irredentism, and war.

Don't forget, for some, its not a quest for independence but dominance. Big difference.

[Reffo]

I'm not sure I follow what you're getting at. Are you saying that because states give different levels of support to different self-determination movements, it's not a right under international law...? Correct me if I'm wrong, I was responding to dayag's comment that not ALL peoples have a right to self-determination under international law, which is incorrect

What I am saying is this:

Clearly, if you are right that everyone who asks for it is entitled to have self determinatin and independence, then the world is extremely hypocritical about upholding such a law.

Or, maybe just maybe,you are simplistic in your interpretation of international law. What do I mean? See my post #32, the item in bold. Really see it and think about it not just dismiss it without any counter reference or rhyme or reason. You really have an annoying habit of just dismissing things that you don't like. Just by purely asserting a dismissal.

[Pleepleus]

...Or, maybe just maybe,you are simplistic in your interpretation of international law. What do I mean? See my post #32, the item in bold. Really see it and think about it not just dismiss it without any counter reference or rhyme or reason. You really have an annoying habit of just dismissing things that you don't like. Just by purely asserting a dismissal.

He just spouts Palestinian propaganda. Curly's simplistic and biased interpretation is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS anti-Israel. And he holds Israel to standards NO OTHER COUNTRY ON THE PLANET would even consider. I seriously don't understand why he is allowed to use the Israel Forum for his anti-Israel propaganda. This is supposed to be a forum for people who are pro-Israel.

Also, he is VERY condescending and thinks once he has addressed a topic, it trumps everything anyone else writes. And he ALWAYS has to have the last word. He can't just make his point and let other people make theirs. He'll pompously post a message that says I can't address this now as I am too busy, but will get to it in a few days. Like anyone cares!

[Reffo]

Also, he is VERY condescending and thinks once he has addressed a topic, it trumps everything anyone else writes. And he ALWAYS has to have the last word. He can't just make his point and let other people make theirs. He'll pompously post a message that says I can't address this now as I am too busy, but will get to it in a few days. Like anyone cares!

Let's be fair, I am much more guilty of most of the above than curlyg is. Not all of the above but most of the above. Especially the bit about the last word ....

[dayag]

He just spouts Palestinian propaganda. Curly's simplistic and biased interpretation is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS anti-Israel. And he holds Israel to standards NO OTHER COUNTRY ON THE PLANET would even consider. I seriously don't understand why he is allowed to use the Israel Forum for his anti-Israel propaganda. This is supposed to be a forum for people who are pro-Israel.

Also, he is VERY condescending and thinks once he has addressed a topic, it trumps everything anyone else writes. And he ALWAYS has to have the last word. He can't just make his point and let other people make theirs. He'll pompously post a message that says I can't address this now as I am too busy, but will get to it in a few days. Like anyone cares!

Pleepleus,
Take a week off and learn some manners.

A friendly reminder to all. Please feel free to disagree with others as vehemently as you want, but DO NOT GET PERSONAL.

from the rules of the road:

Everyone has the right to express his/her opinion, regardless of how vehemently some may disagree with their views. However, common courtesy is required.

Personal attacks are not allowed.

source: http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?t=11

Thanks.

[Reffo]

curlyg

You disagreed with the bold text in my post #31. I asked you to read it again because I felt that your interpretation of it was simplistic. I don't know whether you did or did not read it, but you have gone quite about it so let me state briefly what I meant:

The text in bold does NOT reject the universal right of self determination. It just qualifies that right. It says that self determination does not necessarily involve full independence. There are other forms of self determination too such as autonomy or full recognition of cultural, religious and linguistic rights within a society. The text in bold also mentions the undeniable fact that although the UN talks about the universal right to self determination, it did not mention any enforcement mechanism.

Now which bit of the above do you disagree with?

[dayag]

I think it bizarre that any Church that believes in the Bible would oppose the right of Jews to live in Judea, Samaria, and the Old City of Jerusalem.

The United Church of Canada (UCC), the country’s largest Protestant denomination, voted Wednesday in favor of a consumers' boycott of goods produced in Jewish settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem, Canadian media reported.

According to the Toronto Star, Wednesday’s vote was preceded by nearly six hours of delibertions...

source: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...269207,00.html

[Madeline]

I think it bizarre that any Church that believes in the Bible would oppose the right of Jews to live in Judea, Samaria, and the Old City of Jerusalem.



source: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...269207,00.html

dayag, don't forget, many are false witnesses, and biblical teaching has been replaced by political correctness.
Many Christians are outraged about this, as well as the pimping churches to Muslims. Sorry folk if that offends anyone, but what else would you call it?

[dayag]

Wow, the UCC now opposes Israel's existence as a Jewish state. Given their position that Jews don't have a right to a national homeland, they are now officially an anti-Semitic organization.

The UCC also called on Israel to suspend “settlement” expansion, and express regret for previously asking the “Palestinians” to acknowledge Israel as a Jewish state.

"The UCC's so-called apology to Palestinians is actually a slap in the face to the 6 million Jewish citizens of democratic Israel, to UCC's Canadian Jewish neighbors and to World Jewry," said Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. "The adoption of this anti-peace resolution is proof-positive that UCC leadership is endorsing and promoting an extremist political program wrapped in theological discourse. By the UCC catering to the extremists who deny the validity Israel’s Jewish identity, no Israeli will take any of the church's initiatives - present or future - seriously."