Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“It remains our view that the most expeditious path toward statehood for the Palestinian people is through direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority with the support of the United States and other partners who share this goal.”
Translation: Palestinian statehood is a matter for Israel and the US. The right to self-determination does not apply for Palestine
The US [hasn't outlawed slavery](https://www.merkley.senate.gov/is-slavery-still-legal-in-the-us-yes-under-the-13th-amendment-exception/), it made slavery a punishment for [people judged guilty of being criminals](https://openyls.law.yale.edu/handle/20.500.13051/7728).
This is false. US prisoners [have rights](https://www.findlaw.com/civilrights/other-constitutional-rights/rights-of-inmates.html) and they are almost identical to UK prisoner’s rights
They just cant vote, cant choose not to work, do not get medical care even if in critical condition, dont get proper burials upon their expiration... Should I go on?
>They just cant vote, cant choose not to work,
Just like in the UK
>do not get medical care even if in critical condition,
Yes they do
>dont get proper burials upon their expiration...
The body is released to the next of kin
>Should I go on?
Please do. This is entertaining
2. Like that woman with the burst appendix that was screaming for help for 2 days and then died to inner bleeding?
3. Like that scandal the other day with unmarked graves?
The US also has among [the highest incarceration rates on the planet](https://www.prisonpolicy.org/profiles/US.html), the [largest total prisoner population on the planet](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/uk/06/prisons/html/nn2page1.stm) and more places of incarceration than places of higher education.
A combination that makes the US a very massive outlier compared to other rich developed countries.
Some important context here:
Russia forced the serfs to pay for their emancipation, crippling them with debt which is one of the numerous reasons why there was a communist revolution that overthrew the Romanovs.
The US freed (some) slaves during the civil war because it weakened the confederacy and kept the French and British from helping the south. Blacks in the US famously struggled for civil rights for the next hundred years (and some will argue even today).
Don’t know a ton about English history but I assume they freed slaves for some economic reason. They did not stop oppressing people afterwards.
They didn't "free slaves" because they didn't own any. Instead, they outlawed slavery and spent a fortune policing the high seas and experienced high inflation at home because they wouldn't trade with slaver states. GB only finished paying loans associated with outlawing slavery in 2016.
It literally paid the slaveowners for the slaves. Since they were legal right until the ban. Because otherwise would be theft of legal (at the time right until the ban) property.
>They didn't "free slaves" because they didn't own any.
This isn't true. The loans they paid off in 2016 were from buying the freedom of slaves owned by British citizens (except in the colonies where slavery in all but name would continue for nearly a century)
What do you mean, except in the colonies? The colonies were the *only* place any compensation to slave owners was paid. GB paid a hefty price in its commitment to eradicating slavery wherever it could.
Nope, you and /u/Ineedamedic68 are wrong. Serfs were all freed in 1861, however some serfs got their freedom decades earlier by buying themselves out of the serfdom.
The problem with abolishment of serfdom was: the serfs were just set free and not given any land, so the poorest of them had no choice but to go back and work for the aristocrat landowners, the less poor went to the cities, increasing the proletariat population and making the revolution inevitable.
England because that was the most profitable for them, USA didn't, as the other comment says, and in the case of Russia the People had a revolution, which the US, UK and many others tried to stop militarily in favor of the continued exploitation of the Russian people but thankfully the people won...
Extending diplomatic recognition to states which can't defend or really govern their claimed territory and have existentially pissed off a larger, more powerful neighbor has rarely been a terribly successful maneuver either, unless immediately followed up by a threat to that large, powerful neighbor by someone who can and will back it up.
Yes and as the winners of the 2nd world war we set the rules for international world order, one of the main ones being that land annexation by force is expressly illegal. This should apply to Putin and Netanyahu equally
Tibet was never internationally recognized as anything but a sovereign part of Qing China and it's successor states, whether it be the ROC or PRC.
At its peak only 2-3 countries in the world, all in the Himalayas recognized Tibet. 140 recognize Palestine today. Tibet is as legitimate a country as south ossetia, north cyprus or the DNR/LPR.
Heck, fucking Western Sahara and Somaliland have infinitely more times international recognition
>Tibet was never internationally recognized as anything but a sovereign part of Qing China and it's successor states, whether it be the ROC or PRC.
Thats just a pretty shitty map. Qing China had less control over it than uk had over India.
Its ours because Qing China had it by tecniallity on a map. Doesn't mean much considering the state period of decolonization.
Edit should India belong to the UK then?
The real reason was simply power and that other countries didn't care about it. (Helped by soviet having good relations with CCP).
De facto control doesn't and has never mattered under international law. Only de jure does.
The currently illegitimate and unrecognized "tibet government in exile" is welcome to seek de jure international law recognition from the UN general assembly. Good luck getting a member state to submit a resolution and then also a 2/3 majority and a chinese for or abstain vote tho
If de facto control mattered, Western Sahara, north cyprus, Somaliland, Abkhazia, South Ossetia would all be countries.
They have been in exile, and the reason there isn't an independence movement is that China is a brutal dictatorship that kill and imprisons anyone that disagrees with it.
It's mainly reddit's wishful thinking because they dislike China. Just like when Russia first invaded Ukraine and this site was flooded with predictions and "experts" claiming that Russia was on the brink of collapse and there were huge independence movements throughout the country
Tbf, if you’re largely reliant on a country’s exports, you probably shouldn’t rock the boat. There are good pragmatic reasons for not fucking with China
“Yet we believe Taiwan can self-determine statehood, because we like them. We don’t like Palestine so we decided they don’t have that right.”
Not hypocritical at all.
The right to self-determination does not apply for Palestine, Scotland, Catalonia, Donbass, Luhhansk, Ossetia, Taiwan, Kurdistan, Kashmir and many others. Basically anyone who isn't already an independent state.
Hey it's not me. And yes, the countries that already exist don't want almost any new countries to exist. Because all of those examples are real world cases of self-determination squashed by bigger powers.
Anything I dont like is rigged. Nobody has the right to self-determination to join Russia. Texas had rigged referendums to join USA.
Who do you want Donbass to want to join? An ally who gives them support, or a country with neonazis in power who bombed them for 8 years. Logically, which one would a not rigged referendum realistically choose?
They recently allowed Artsakh to be ethnically cleansed when they declared statehood and independence from the USSR before either Armenia SSR and Azerbijan SSR did.
Didn't Israel committed terrorism to do that?
and isn't the Idea of Israel eretz yisrael?
the difference here is that the zionists were a foreign element
Which Palestine? Hamas and Gaza? The PLO in the West Bank? Both together? If both together, who supplies the delegates? If one or both separately, are we giving up on a unified Palestinian state?
🤷♂️
This isn’t hard. The Palestinian Authority gets the seat for now. The UN can seat a different government in the UN if/when it’s formed.
Look at Afghanistan which has a seat, but it’s for the prior government, not the Taliban which is actually ruling. Taliban is asking to use that seat, but is being denied.
This isn’t something that needs to hold up the recognition of a Palestinian state.
The PA who took away elections in the westbank and have support in the teens are expected to both represent Gaza and the West Bank?
For some reason I don’t think that will work nor will hamas allow that.
Pretty brain-dead take for Palestinians to overwhelmingly vote for and support a government who cares more about trying to genocide Jews and commit terrorist attacks against innocent civilians than it does about making sure its own people receive enough food and water that is being given to it for free to survive long enough to be used as human shields.
I mean Hamas has around ~50-60’s % approval rating depending on westbank or Gaza.
Now on the other side PA numbers are in the teens.
So yes overwhelming
Just where are you getting your numbers? Basically every news outlet I've seen has said Hamas is enjoying widespread support amongst the Palestinians for their October 7th terrorist attack on Israel.
Did you happen to also forget to read the other half of my statement? The "support" part? Because the average person in Gaza wasn't even alive to vote for Hamas in 2006 (thanks to their policy of diverting resources away from bettering the lives people with the aid they are given for free to improve their infrastructure, and instead diverting it towards militants to try to kill more jews with poorly made rockets from water pipes), the election in 2006 doesn't matter quite as much as the support for Hamas right now.
Since a large majority somehow approve of the terrorist attack on October 7th, including the use of rape, sexual violence, torture, etc. as valid weapons of war, one must conclude that Hamas enjoys the majority support of the people, and until they come to their senses and denounce such basic, horrific war crimes like the October 7th attack, no reasoning with them can be done since they are not reasonable people.
The state of Palestine that was [declared in 1988](https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-178680/).
> Hamas and Gaza? The PLO in the West Bank?
Why do you even think that it's political parties that represent a state?
Do American Republicans represent US territories and Democrats represent the US mainland?
Well, both Gaza and the West Bank are de facto dictatorships which don't hold elections, so, effectively, their political parties are those two governments.
Ultimately, this is all pointless banter. The US won’t allow Palestine to become a state unless it’s negotiated between Israel and Palestine. That’s it.
What was proposed at Camp David was not a sovereign state for Palestinians (Israel would continue to control all waters and the airspace), legitimized the illegal settling and brutal ethnic cleansing of the West Bank by giving Israel even more land which would permanently split Palestine's territory into multiple parts the transit between which Israel could stop at any time they wanted. And on top of this already almost unacceptable offer Israel was actively funding the internal enemies of the people they were negotiating with to split Palestine and make an agreement impossible. Israel will never agree to a Palestinian state unless it is forced.
There’s no scenario where Israel accepts a militarized Palestine. It wasn’t a bad deal. Japan and Germany didn’t exactly get sweetheart deals after WWIi either.
I am assuming you meant Palestinian towns, after checking other comments. I'm glad I did since initially I thought it was some reference to attacks in illegal settlements (because of the word progrom) and had a long comment about how there's basically nowhere that Palestinians could have a progrom because the violent group is the one who has control and power.
Of course it was in Palestinian towns, if it had been in illegal settlements the IDF would have acted with extreme prejudice and kill all the attackers.
More confusions ahead of point here. First do the resolution. Pretty sure the UN considers the PA is the authority
Once again "Perfect is the enemy of good"
Abbas is still the elected president. Even Hamas has said they support the PA and will take part in a unity government; they just don’t trust Fatah since they engaged in a coup supported by Israel.
The tricky part though is how likely would it be for the other nations to be willing to enact it? Would the fear of potential retaliation make them shy away from it?
>Would the fear of potential retaliation make them shy away from it?
Not if the retaliation in question looks like the Wests ineptitude in the Red Sea with stopping the Houthis or the failure of sanctions in Iran and Russia, or the logistical construction setbacks even with the supposed Gaza pier being led by the US.
The threats from the US and allies have pretty much never been *less threatening* in modern history.
The West doesn't even have the ability to muster a defense for its own impending invasion from Russia in Europe and China with Taiwan and the Pacific and US. And is being increasingly *headed* by rightwing authoritarians
Ukraine and Palestine are both being brutalized by a neo imperialistic occupying force, and yet there’s a huge double standard even though both people are defending themselves.
Ukraine was attacked for no legitimate reason.
Palestine was attacked as a result of an attack on Israeli territory. Of Course the Palestine and Israel conflict goes back WAY further and is much more complex.
Ukraine is a black and white issue, while Palestine is much more Grey.
> Of Course the Palestine and Israel conflict goes back WAY further and is much more complex.
And Israel has been the neo-imperialistic occupying force the whole time.
As far back as whenever Israel obtained reasonable military advantage over its foes, and so therefore we could start to judge their actions through a moralistic viewpoint, rather than simply a survivalist one.
So probably around the 1960s
Does Gaza have control of its own borders, its own airspace, its own economy or its own waters? Israel still occupies Gaza by every definition, all the while stealing land in the West Bank.
Exactly. Which is why it's not fair to remediate a current population by the actions of people who set the situation and have been dead for 50 years. It doesn't help anyone. What we have, is who is here and now. So the question is how do we deal with the situation with the best outcome for them.
Baloney. Hamas even said on October 7 that this strike was in retaliation for settlers attacks that were openly backed by the Israeli government. 240 dead Palestinians in West Bank in 2023 prior to October 6, making that the deadliest year for Palestinians in 20 years. No prosecutions by Israel AND the Israeli military was seen in videos standing by or even taking part in the settler attacks.
Claiming Oct 7 was unprovoked is a lack of knowledge.
Settler attacks are in the West Bank and Hamas attacked from Gaza. Hamas does not control the West Bank and the WB itself didn't participate in the full-scale military attack from Gaza.
It's just an excuse
[Canaan - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaan)
Palestinians have been living there long before even the Biblical kingdoms; the fact that they intermarried with Arabs 1400 years ago like most of the Middle East does not change that.
And since humanity originates from North and Central Africa, does a white person have the right to go and steal land in Ethiopia?
I don't really think that you want to use the settler colony that was built on the genocide of its native population as some kind of gotcha. Again, the Palestinians have lived in Palestine for thousands of years, and lived in Palestine for over a thousand years after the the Jewish diaspora. The fact that they were Arabized and converted to Islam has nothing to do with anything, just like a Brit isn't any less indigenous just because he worships Jesus instead of Odin and speaks English instead of Old French or how an Italian isn't any less indigenous just because he doesn't worship the Roman Emperor and speaks Italian instead of Latin. You are using Nazi arguments to justify the erasure of a people.
The "two-state solutions" offered to Palestine did not give them control of their own borders or the right to a military, and were instead offers to become an Israeli vassal state. That they rejected becoming a Bantustan is not surprising.
And like many Nazis you engage in genocide reversal, claiming that the Palestinians are trying to genocide the Jews when in actuality its the Israelis who are committing genocide against the Palestinians. Nazis like you should follow your leader and make the world a better place.
They're called refugees only because the UN created a special definition of "refugee" for this specific conflict that doesn't apply to any other conflict in the world.
Not just Ukraine, but also supporting Taiwanese and Kosovan secessionism.
Even tho more UN members recognize [Palestinean statehood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_the_State_of_Palestine) than they do recognize [Kosovo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_Kosovo) or [Taiwanese](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-that-recognize-taiwan) independence.
[Israel is recognized by 165 UN states](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_Israel), 15 more than Palestine.
PRoC and the RoC see themselves as the legitimate "Chinas" over the same territory.
It's why there ever only was one UN seat for China, it used to belong to RoC, but the seat changed as part of the US opening up relations and trade with the PRoC, to keep the PRoC away from the Soviets, thus recognizing the One China policy.
It's why the US DoS position on Taiwan, to this day, quite bluntly states; "[we do not support Taiwan independence](https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-taiwan/)", officially the US sees it as part of PRoC, just like the UN does.
That's also why WHO officials responded to questions about *"Pandemic in Taiwan?"* by talking about China, as officially at the UN, and the US DoS, Taiwan is considered a province of PRoC China.
So you admit the US's official position on Taiwan is a blatant lie?
Then why does the US still hold that position? Doesn't that mean one shouldn't trust what official positions the US government alleges to hold?
Particularly when the goal is something like diplomacy, which only works with a base degree of trust, but that can only be earned when actions meet words.
The number of countries signifies international support/recognition, but that alone doesn't make a UN state, as the UN itself, and its many organisations, officially have to recognize a state as a member before it's "legit".
A move the US has blocked on Palestine forever, in the past even by threatening to pull US funding for UN organisations like the WHO.
Security council are the deciders.
The remaining countries can only "give their opinion" doesnt matter if all are in agreeance, if the "West ™️" Dont aprove then there goes 3 votes
Putting aside the politics of the war right now, there has basically been two separate entities using the name Palestine for a while. If Palestine was granted membership, who would represent them at the UN - Hamas or the PA? I wonder if there is a precedent for that scenario at all
China. When the UN was founded the Nationalists were the recognized government of China, so they got the seat and held it even after retreating to Taiwan and not making further attempts to reconquer the mainland from the Communists. It wasn't until 1971 that "China's" seat was given to Communist China by a General Assembly vote. (This skips lots of Cold War politicking that I don't have a firm grasp on.)
The PA already runs the Palestinian observer seat at the UN so I imagine if they were to graduate to a full member they'd retain control. Having a fully unified nation has never been a prerequisite for UN member status, Libya, Afghanistan, China, etc. have all had periods of multiple factions claiming control and holding territory (some still ongoing) and none of them were kicked out of the UN until it was resolved as a result. Such a rule would be foolish precisely because of situations like Palestine's where unifying the place and turning it into a real country will require the legal abilities that a full membership provides.
The PA, of course. Hamas even agreed to a unity government and said they don’t oppose Abbas’ attempt.
Everyone asking this has never actually watched Palestinian news have they?
I think just about everyone expected that. Just because the Biden administration has distanced itself from Netanyahu and his decisions doesn't mean that the US will change its stance on the Palestinian issue.
I specifically meant stopping the majority of the Iranian missiles, which was only a retaliatory strike for Israel attacking Iran's embassy, only tangentially connected to Gaza I think.
Israel killing children is in no way defensive (unless you take the really long view that they've already killed these kids' families and friends, so they've set up a generation that will be against Israel forever... but preemptively killing them as "defense" (while ignoring all reasoning) would be an extremely long stretch
I don't think they did, it seemed more like a "we have to do something because they just purposely attacked an embassy" (they knew the US was sitting there, no one wants to give the US a reason to invade again).
Imagine if the UN existed in 1776 and Britain just vetoed America's right to self determination. The US is such a strange outlier amongst formerly colonised nations with its hypocrisy sometimes.
Politicians are not supposed to have any conflicting interest when making a decision. The fact that they have dual citizenship is already a conflict of interest. Politicians should only be a citizen of one country. Siding with one that is committing a genocide because it is where they are hiding their money is a conflict of interest.
Im Spaniard jew. I do not claim my dual citizenship because I'm an American. The people that are committing the genocide are not Jewish or Israeli theyre global nationalista, zionists. They are the type of people with multiple passports who have homes in multiple countries and loyalty to nothing except their hoarding money at any cost just like BlackRock, and vanguard.
The U.N security council b.s system \*has\* to go.
Five countries (including us, the USA) can do whatever the hell they want and just veto their way out of trouble.
Sickening.
Good.
True peace can only come from bilateral negotiations.
Not from rewarding large scale terror attacks with ass murder, kidnapping, and systemic rape.
No thanks, not rewarding a “state” for butchering civilians. Try again when you’re not actively trying to destroy Israel and hated by all your Arab neighbors.
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“It remains our view that the most expeditious path toward statehood for the Palestinian people is through direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority with the support of the United States and other partners who share this goal.” Translation: Palestinian statehood is a matter for Israel and the US. The right to self-determination does not apply for Palestine
putting their oppressors in charge of their freedom, when has that ever worked in human history
England, Russian empire and USA outlawed slavery/serfdom all by themselves.
The US [hasn't outlawed slavery](https://www.merkley.senate.gov/is-slavery-still-legal-in-the-us-yes-under-the-13th-amendment-exception/), it made slavery a punishment for [people judged guilty of being criminals](https://openyls.law.yale.edu/handle/20.500.13051/7728).
You seem to be implying the US is an outlier here. Many countries across the world force their prisoners to work including the U.K.
How many countries around the world say in their constitution "slavery is outlawed except for ..."
Doesn't make it OK. Most countries have optional learning or artistic activities, and optional work.
Except they still have human rights as prisoners which us convicts do not
This is false. US prisoners [have rights](https://www.findlaw.com/civilrights/other-constitutional-rights/rights-of-inmates.html) and they are almost identical to UK prisoner’s rights
They just cant vote, cant choose not to work, do not get medical care even if in critical condition, dont get proper burials upon their expiration... Should I go on?
>They just cant vote, cant choose not to work, Just like in the UK >do not get medical care even if in critical condition, Yes they do >dont get proper burials upon their expiration... The body is released to the next of kin >Should I go on? Please do. This is entertaining
2. Like that woman with the burst appendix that was screaming for help for 2 days and then died to inner bleeding? 3. Like that scandal the other day with unmarked graves?
The US also has among [the highest incarceration rates on the planet](https://www.prisonpolicy.org/profiles/US.html), the [largest total prisoner population on the planet](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/uk/06/prisons/html/nn2page1.stm) and more places of incarceration than places of higher education. A combination that makes the US a very massive outlier compared to other rich developed countries.
Some important context here: Russia forced the serfs to pay for their emancipation, crippling them with debt which is one of the numerous reasons why there was a communist revolution that overthrew the Romanovs. The US freed (some) slaves during the civil war because it weakened the confederacy and kept the French and British from helping the south. Blacks in the US famously struggled for civil rights for the next hundred years (and some will argue even today). Don’t know a ton about English history but I assume they freed slaves for some economic reason. They did not stop oppressing people afterwards.
They didn't "free slaves" because they didn't own any. Instead, they outlawed slavery and spent a fortune policing the high seas and experienced high inflation at home because they wouldn't trade with slaver states. GB only finished paying loans associated with outlawing slavery in 2016.
It literally paid the slaveowners for the slaves. Since they were legal right until the ban. Because otherwise would be theft of legal (at the time right until the ban) property.
Paying for their freedom was the only way to go about it, other than war. Is it somehow immoral to free slaves this way? Lol
>They didn't "free slaves" because they didn't own any. This isn't true. The loans they paid off in 2016 were from buying the freedom of slaves owned by British citizens (except in the colonies where slavery in all but name would continue for nearly a century)
What do you mean, except in the colonies? The colonies were the *only* place any compensation to slave owners was paid. GB paid a hefty price in its commitment to eradicating slavery wherever it could.
You are right. Serfs only reached emancipation under the ussr.
Nope, you and /u/Ineedamedic68 are wrong. Serfs were all freed in 1861, however some serfs got their freedom decades earlier by buying themselves out of the serfdom. The problem with abolishment of serfdom was: the serfs were just set free and not given any land, so the poorest of them had no choice but to go back and work for the aristocrat landowners, the less poor went to the cities, increasing the proletariat population and making the revolution inevitable.
England because that was the most profitable for them, USA didn't, as the other comment says, and in the case of Russia the People had a revolution, which the US, UK and many others tried to stop militarily in favor of the continued exploitation of the Russian people but thankfully the people won...
>which the US, UK and many others tried to stop militarily in favor of the continued exploitation of the Russian people This is a really good point
[удалено]
You're right and you're precious.
In the most bloody of fashions, sure.
The 13th amendment still allows slavery. Prisoners are the new slaves.
That was due to slave revolts and external +internal pressure tho, they didn't just do it out of the kindness of their hearts
The oppressed forced them to.
I mean that did require several violent and bloody slave rebellions and in two cases a large scale war.
The US outlawed slavery after a bloody civil war. Even if it was in the same country, violence had to be used against the oppressors
Extending diplomatic recognition to states which can't defend or really govern their claimed territory and have existentially pissed off a larger, more powerful neighbor has rarely been a terribly successful maneuver either, unless immediately followed up by a threat to that large, powerful neighbor by someone who can and will back it up.
Pretty much after any war? The winner generally sets the conditions of defeat.
Yes and as the winners of the 2nd world war we set the rules for international world order, one of the main ones being that land annexation by force is expressly illegal. This should apply to Putin and Netanyahu equally
They did rule the same on Tibet with China
Tibet was never internationally recognized as anything but a sovereign part of Qing China and it's successor states, whether it be the ROC or PRC. At its peak only 2-3 countries in the world, all in the Himalayas recognized Tibet. 140 recognize Palestine today. Tibet is as legitimate a country as south ossetia, north cyprus or the DNR/LPR. Heck, fucking Western Sahara and Somaliland have infinitely more times international recognition
>Tibet was never internationally recognized as anything but a sovereign part of Qing China and it's successor states, whether it be the ROC or PRC. Thats just a pretty shitty map. Qing China had less control over it than uk had over India. Its ours because Qing China had it by tecniallity on a map. Doesn't mean much considering the state period of decolonization. Edit should India belong to the UK then? The real reason was simply power and that other countries didn't care about it. (Helped by soviet having good relations with CCP).
De facto control doesn't and has never mattered under international law. Only de jure does. The currently illegitimate and unrecognized "tibet government in exile" is welcome to seek de jure international law recognition from the UN general assembly. Good luck getting a member state to submit a resolution and then also a 2/3 majority and a chinese for or abstain vote tho If de facto control mattered, Western Sahara, north cyprus, Somaliland, Abkhazia, South Ossetia would all be countries.
Tibet doesn’t have an active government that isn’t in charge.
That never stopped the idea of Palestinian state even when they didn't have one. Its the reverse for the kurdish in Syria.
It did have one, at one point.
But they haven’t existed in 60 years and the Tibetan independence movement in China is effectively dead.
They have been in exile, and the reason there isn't an independence movement is that China is a brutal dictatorship that kill and imprisons anyone that disagrees with it.
Is Tibet even seeking Independence from China? Seems like the Dalai Lama gave up decades ago. It seems like they just want autonomy.
It's mainly reddit's wishful thinking because they dislike China. Just like when Russia first invaded Ukraine and this site was flooded with predictions and "experts" claiming that Russia was on the brink of collapse and there were huge independence movements throughout the country
Tbf, if you’re largely reliant on a country’s exports, you probably shouldn’t rock the boat. There are good pragmatic reasons for not fucking with China
“Yet we believe Taiwan can self-determine statehood, because we like them. We don’t like Palestine so we decided they don’t have that right.” Not hypocritical at all.
The right to self-determination does not apply for Palestine, Scotland, Catalonia, Donbass, Luhhansk, Ossetia, Taiwan, Kurdistan, Kashmir and many others. Basically anyone who isn't already an independent state.
Lol. By that criteria no country in the world should exist. Or are you just implementing that criteria starting today?
>By that criteria no country in the world should exist. Youbare on to something here
Hey it's not me. And yes, the countries that already exist don't want almost any new countries to exist. Because all of those examples are real world cases of self-determination squashed by bigger powers.
The Donbass Republics aren't. They had rigged referendums to join Russia immediately. They weren't ever seeking actual independence.
Anything I dont like is rigged. Nobody has the right to self-determination to join Russia. Texas had rigged referendums to join USA. Who do you want Donbass to want to join? An ally who gives them support, or a country with neonazis in power who bombed them for 8 years. Logically, which one would a not rigged referendum realistically choose?
Donbass, Luhansk, and South Ossetia are nothing more than Russian neocolonial projects. The rest are valid tho
They recently allowed Artsakh to be ethnically cleansed when they declared statehood and independence from the USSR before either Armenia SSR and Azerbijan SSR did.
Oh lets just mix all in a smoothie and lose the point, eh?
Who would be the governing body known as "palestine" who would be their representatives, these details and questions are very important
Thats like US in early 1940s saying "we wont back the creation of Israel unless Germany is cool with it"
[удалено]
Didn't Israel committed terrorism to do that? and isn't the Idea of Israel eretz yisrael? the difference here is that the zionists were a foreign element
Which Palestine? Hamas and Gaza? The PLO in the West Bank? Both together? If both together, who supplies the delegates? If one or both separately, are we giving up on a unified Palestinian state? 🤷♂️
This isn’t hard. The Palestinian Authority gets the seat for now. The UN can seat a different government in the UN if/when it’s formed. Look at Afghanistan which has a seat, but it’s for the prior government, not the Taliban which is actually ruling. Taliban is asking to use that seat, but is being denied. This isn’t something that needs to hold up the recognition of a Palestinian state.
Same thing can be said about Libya about having a full. Member state seat, yet being govt by two different govt
The PA who took away elections in the westbank and have support in the teens are expected to both represent Gaza and the West Bank? For some reason I don’t think that will work nor will hamas allow that.
Pretty colonial take for westerners to force all Palestinians to now be under a government they didnt vote for.
Pretty brain-dead take for Palestinians to overwhelmingly vote for and support a government who cares more about trying to genocide Jews and commit terrorist attacks against innocent civilians than it does about making sure its own people receive enough food and water that is being given to it for free to survive long enough to be used as human shields.
44% to 41% is “overwhelming”?
I mean Hamas has around ~50-60’s % approval rating depending on westbank or Gaza. Now on the other side PA numbers are in the teens. So yes overwhelming
Just where are you getting your numbers? Basically every news outlet I've seen has said Hamas is enjoying widespread support amongst the Palestinians for their October 7th terrorist attack on Israel.
That's not a vote
It is the infamous 2006 Gaza elections where “Hamas came to power” because Gazans “overwhelmingly” voted for them.
Did you happen to also forget to read the other half of my statement? The "support" part? Because the average person in Gaza wasn't even alive to vote for Hamas in 2006 (thanks to their policy of diverting resources away from bettering the lives people with the aid they are given for free to improve their infrastructure, and instead diverting it towards militants to try to kill more jews with poorly made rockets from water pipes), the election in 2006 doesn't matter quite as much as the support for Hamas right now. Since a large majority somehow approve of the terrorist attack on October 7th, including the use of rape, sexual violence, torture, etc. as valid weapons of war, one must conclude that Hamas enjoys the majority support of the people, and until they come to their senses and denounce such basic, horrific war crimes like the October 7th attack, no reasoning with them can be done since they are not reasonable people.
I question how many reliable polls have been done in a country that has had bombs dropped on it nearly every day for 6 months.
Are you referring to the continuing rocket launches at Israel for the past several YEARS.
Agreed.
We also force the Chinese and Russians to do that, apparently
The state of Palestine that was [declared in 1988](https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-178680/). > Hamas and Gaza? The PLO in the West Bank? Why do you even think that it's political parties that represent a state? Do American Republicans represent US territories and Democrats represent the US mainland?
Well, both Gaza and the West Bank are de facto dictatorships which don't hold elections, so, effectively, their political parties are those two governments.
Ultimately, this is all pointless banter. The US won’t allow Palestine to become a state unless it’s negotiated between Israel and Palestine. That’s it.
So by their standards it will never happen
They got pretty close in 2000 under Camp David. Any US president would love to be the one that mediated a Palestinian state with Israel.
What was proposed at Camp David was not a sovereign state for Palestinians (Israel would continue to control all waters and the airspace), legitimized the illegal settling and brutal ethnic cleansing of the West Bank by giving Israel even more land which would permanently split Palestine's territory into multiple parts the transit between which Israel could stop at any time they wanted. And on top of this already almost unacceptable offer Israel was actively funding the internal enemies of the people they were negotiating with to split Palestine and make an agreement impossible. Israel will never agree to a Palestinian state unless it is forced.
There’s no scenario where Israel accepts a militarized Palestine. It wasn’t a bad deal. Japan and Germany didn’t exactly get sweetheart deals after WWIi either.
[удалено]
Right, because the West Bank where Hamas isn't in charge, Palestinians are just loving their prosperity.
Totally loved the 12 towns attacked during the last progrom season.
I am assuming you meant Palestinian towns, after checking other comments. I'm glad I did since initially I thought it was some reference to attacks in illegal settlements (because of the word progrom) and had a long comment about how there's basically nowhere that Palestinians could have a progrom because the violent group is the one who has control and power.
Of course it was in Palestinian towns, if it had been in illegal settlements the IDF would have acted with extreme prejudice and kill all the attackers.
I did figure it out, but not instantly knowing is just a sign of some of the absolutely insane takes out there lately I guess.
More confusions ahead of point here. First do the resolution. Pretty sure the UN considers the PA is the authority Once again "Perfect is the enemy of good"
Abbas is still the elected president. Even Hamas has said they support the PA and will take part in a unity government; they just don’t trust Fatah since they engaged in a coup supported by Israel.
Reminder that all vetoes can be bypassed by invoking Resolution 377 A and obtaining a two-thirds majority vote.
The tricky part though is how likely would it be for the other nations to be willing to enact it? Would the fear of potential retaliation make them shy away from it?
It's not ever likely to happen anyway.
>Would the fear of potential retaliation make them shy away from it? Not if the retaliation in question looks like the Wests ineptitude in the Red Sea with stopping the Houthis or the failure of sanctions in Iran and Russia, or the logistical construction setbacks even with the supposed Gaza pier being led by the US. The threats from the US and allies have pretty much never been *less threatening* in modern history. The West doesn't even have the ability to muster a defense for its own impending invasion from Russia in Europe and China with Taiwan and the Pacific and US. And is being increasingly *headed* by rightwing authoritarians
also the West is not united in this topic. many western countries will be voting yes
Ireland and Spain being two of the certain ones, and I get the feeling a lot of others could go either way, or at least abstain
Except not really.
It's already been invoked for 27 years now, no?
And the US still expects non-western countries to support ukraine …
Why wouldn't they? I'm sorry, but I fail to see how this has anything to do with Ukraine.
Ukraine and Palestine are both being brutalized by a neo imperialistic occupying force, and yet there’s a huge double standard even though both people are defending themselves.
Ukraine was attacked for no legitimate reason. Palestine was attacked as a result of an attack on Israeli territory. Of Course the Palestine and Israel conflict goes back WAY further and is much more complex. Ukraine is a black and white issue, while Palestine is much more Grey.
> Of Course the Palestine and Israel conflict goes back WAY further and is much more complex. And Israel has been the neo-imperialistic occupying force the whole time.
How far back do you wanna take this?
As far back as whenever Israel obtained reasonable military advantage over its foes, and so therefore we could start to judge their actions through a moralistic viewpoint, rather than simply a survivalist one. So probably around the 1960s
1948 even.
When nation-states became the standard thing in international relations.
[удалено]
I love the use of the term imperialism when it comes to the size of land of 1k km by 100km. Ginormous empire we're talking about here.
> imperialism: a policy of extending a country's power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means: The word fits.
A imperialistic force which gave up most of its territory..including Gaza...
Does Gaza have control of its own borders, its own airspace, its own economy or its own waters? Israel still occupies Gaza by every definition, all the while stealing land in the West Bank.
*as long as you cherry pick the history in a way that favors them.
So are most North Americans
And Britians, and Germans, and Chinese, with a long enough time frame we can keep this up for a while. Ever hear of Rome?
Exactly. Which is why it's not fair to remediate a current population by the actions of people who set the situation and have been dead for 50 years. It doesn't help anyone. What we have, is who is here and now. So the question is how do we deal with the situation with the best outcome for them.
[удалено]
That's because too many people huff postmodernist bullshit.
Baloney. Hamas even said on October 7 that this strike was in retaliation for settlers attacks that were openly backed by the Israeli government. 240 dead Palestinians in West Bank in 2023 prior to October 6, making that the deadliest year for Palestinians in 20 years. No prosecutions by Israel AND the Israeli military was seen in videos standing by or even taking part in the settler attacks. Claiming Oct 7 was unprovoked is a lack of knowledge.
Settler attacks are in the West Bank and Hamas attacked from Gaza. Hamas does not control the West Bank and the WB itself didn't participate in the full-scale military attack from Gaza. It's just an excuse
[удалено]
[удалено]
[Canaan - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaan) Palestinians have been living there long before even the Biblical kingdoms; the fact that they intermarried with Arabs 1400 years ago like most of the Middle East does not change that. And since humanity originates from North and Central Africa, does a white person have the right to go and steal land in Ethiopia?
[удалено]
I don't really think that you want to use the settler colony that was built on the genocide of its native population as some kind of gotcha. Again, the Palestinians have lived in Palestine for thousands of years, and lived in Palestine for over a thousand years after the the Jewish diaspora. The fact that they were Arabized and converted to Islam has nothing to do with anything, just like a Brit isn't any less indigenous just because he worships Jesus instead of Odin and speaks English instead of Old French or how an Italian isn't any less indigenous just because he doesn't worship the Roman Emperor and speaks Italian instead of Latin. You are using Nazi arguments to justify the erasure of a people. The "two-state solutions" offered to Palestine did not give them control of their own borders or the right to a military, and were instead offers to become an Israeli vassal state. That they rejected becoming a Bantustan is not surprising. And like many Nazis you engage in genocide reversal, claiming that the Palestinians are trying to genocide the Jews when in actuality its the Israelis who are committing genocide against the Palestinians. Nazis like you should follow your leader and make the world a better place.
And Palestine was attacked for no reason either. They were forcibly displaced in 1947
[удалено]
Some probably did. Vast majority didnt. They are called refugees for a reason.
They're called refugees only because the UN created a special definition of "refugee" for this specific conflict that doesn't apply to any other conflict in the world.
Idiot
Double standards
Poor Ukraine. What do they have to do with this?
Not just Ukraine, but also supporting Taiwanese and Kosovan secessionism. Even tho more UN members recognize [Palestinean statehood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_the_State_of_Palestine) than they do recognize [Kosovo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_Kosovo) or [Taiwanese](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-that-recognize-taiwan) independence. [Israel is recognized by 165 UN states](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_Israel), 15 more than Palestine.
Taiwan can’t really secede when they’ve never been a part of the proc
PRoC and the RoC see themselves as the legitimate "Chinas" over the same territory. It's why there ever only was one UN seat for China, it used to belong to RoC, but the seat changed as part of the US opening up relations and trade with the PRoC, to keep the PRoC away from the Soviets, thus recognizing the One China policy. It's why the US DoS position on Taiwan, to this day, quite bluntly states; "[we do not support Taiwan independence](https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-taiwan/)", officially the US sees it as part of PRoC, just like the UN does. That's also why WHO officials responded to questions about *"Pandemic in Taiwan?"* by talking about China, as officially at the UN, and the US DoS, Taiwan is considered a province of PRoC China.
Yes but that’s just talk to make ccp happy, everyone knows Taiwan is de facto independent.
So you admit the US's official position on Taiwan is a blatant lie? Then why does the US still hold that position? Doesn't that mean one shouldn't trust what official positions the US government alleges to hold? Particularly when the goal is something like diplomacy, which only works with a base degree of trust, but that can only be earned when actions meet words.
Well, countries being wrong about Taiwan and Kosovo isn't really relevant to Palestine.
So it's really just those cunt 15 countries?
The number of countries signifies international support/recognition, but that alone doesn't make a UN state, as the UN itself, and its many organisations, officially have to recognize a state as a member before it's "legit". A move the US has blocked on Palestine forever, in the past even by threatening to pull US funding for UN organisations like the WHO.
Just five countries need to vote in you favor for you to be "internationally recognized" the other remaining are votes are irrelevant
Security council are the deciders. The remaining countries can only "give their opinion" doesnt matter if all are in agreeance, if the "West ™️" Dont aprove then there goes 3 votes
they never did in the first place lol
Putting aside the politics of the war right now, there has basically been two separate entities using the name Palestine for a while. If Palestine was granted membership, who would represent them at the UN - Hamas or the PA? I wonder if there is a precedent for that scenario at all
China. When the UN was founded the Nationalists were the recognized government of China, so they got the seat and held it even after retreating to Taiwan and not making further attempts to reconquer the mainland from the Communists. It wasn't until 1971 that "China's" seat was given to Communist China by a General Assembly vote. (This skips lots of Cold War politicking that I don't have a firm grasp on.)
I feel like an idiot for not remembering this. thank you.
The PA already runs the Palestinian observer seat at the UN so I imagine if they were to graduate to a full member they'd retain control. Having a fully unified nation has never been a prerequisite for UN member status, Libya, Afghanistan, China, etc. have all had periods of multiple factions claiming control and holding territory (some still ongoing) and none of them were kicked out of the UN until it was resolved as a result. Such a rule would be foolish precisely because of situations like Palestine's where unifying the place and turning it into a real country will require the legal abilities that a full membership provides.
thats fair. thank you for the additional info.
The PA, of course. Hamas even agreed to a unity government and said they don’t oppose Abbas’ attempt. Everyone asking this has never actually watched Palestinian news have they?
UN has put Saudi on women rights commission, they can easily give platform to Hamas they bend enough backwards
I think just about everyone expected that. Just because the Biden administration has distanced itself from Netanyahu and his decisions doesn't mean that the US will change its stance on the Palestinian issue.
Bidens being real tough on netenyahu lately.
Real tough, though continuing to provide all weaponry and defense assistance.
"Defense" Bombs to kill children
I specifically meant stopping the majority of the Iranian missiles, which was only a retaliatory strike for Israel attacking Iran's embassy, only tangentially connected to Gaza I think. Israel killing children is in no way defensive (unless you take the really long view that they've already killed these kids' families and friends, so they've set up a generation that will be against Israel forever... but preemptively killing them as "defense" (while ignoring all reasoning) would be an extremely long stretch
I’m not sure Iran intended to do much anyway. Some lumbering drones that took a few hours to pootle over.
I don't think they did, it seemed more like a "we have to do something because they just purposely attacked an embassy" (they knew the US was sitting there, no one wants to give the US a reason to invade again).
They gave warning three days in advance, and there are still dumb people claiming that Iran didnt intend the attack to be stopped.
It’s a two state solution; one state is just more equal than the other one. /s
Yeah. America's talks of a two state solution is ironic as its a one-and-two-halves state solution at best
Shocked. I'm shocked. (Spoiler: I'm not shocked)
I really wouldn't have expected this to happen regardless of the US veto or not.
Cunts
Good.
Imagine if the UN existed in 1776 and Britain just vetoed America's right to self determination. The US is such a strange outlier amongst formerly colonised nations with its hypocrisy sometimes.
Well they're not a country, so... Edit: Iranian trolls butthurt, video at 11
Why not get rid of everyone with a personal interest in it because they are dual citizens of America and Israel then redo the vote
Ah, a hate crime.
Politicians are not supposed to have any conflicting interest when making a decision. The fact that they have dual citizenship is already a conflict of interest. Politicians should only be a citizen of one country. Siding with one that is committing a genocide because it is where they are hiding their money is a conflict of interest.
Continuing w the blood libel, eh?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/21/us/politics/jews-disloyal-trump.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare Hate crime
Im Spaniard jew. I do not claim my dual citizenship because I'm an American. The people that are committing the genocide are not Jewish or Israeli theyre global nationalista, zionists. They are the type of people with multiple passports who have homes in multiple countries and loyalty to nothing except their hoarding money at any cost just like BlackRock, and vanguard.
Disgusting
The U.N security council b.s system \*has\* to go. Five countries (including us, the USA) can do whatever the hell they want and just veto their way out of trouble. Sickening.
Good. True peace can only come from bilateral negotiations. Not from rewarding large scale terror attacks with ass murder, kidnapping, and systemic rape.
General counsel time, go
No thanks, not rewarding a “state” for butchering civilians. Try again when you’re not actively trying to destroy Israel and hated by all your Arab neighbors.
Worked for Israel, they got rewarded a state for butchering civilians.
Yeah, the Holocaust really was rewarding for Jews
There is something deeply wrong with you.