It's UN 37/43, adopted 3 December 1982:
"reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle."
I thiiink this is why Northern Irish groups like to use the phrase "armed struggle", https://archive.org/details/armedstrugglehis00engl
well I don't consider palestinians people, their nation to be real, that they have anything to be liberated from but themselves, that colonialism still exists or that this is an occupation so what now, leftist
WYR:
-
Have your basic humanity intact, live a life that won't cause you horrific existential dread/shame on your deathbed
-
You get to be Islamophobic
-
I can't help but feel the UN saying it 'reaffirms' the legitimacy of armed struggle feels like playing both sides of the field; most times armed struggles succeed (Gaza is a somewhat unique case in that they've been walled up like fish in a barrel, and they can't actually retaliate when they're being genocided), and if the UN wants for there to be dialogue with the liberated nation then they have no choice but to say they affirm the struggle for liberation; if the struggle fails, they continue their relationship with the colonizers and no harm no foul.
If they were genuine, they would vote to never acknowledge the state of Israel and to do everything in their power to ensure it fails; compare everything the UN did for Ukraine vs what they're doing with Israel. If/When Israel finally ethnically cleanses the Palestinians from the occupied territory, the UN will simply continue business as usual with Israel like no crimes were ever committed.
Also they can't say they don't affirm the legitimacy of the struggle because the struggle will happen with or without their acceptance; no oppressed nation waits for the permission of a pack of clowns to fight back, and even without their support they'll still have the support of people around the world anyway. The freedom fighters in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan and Iraq didn't have the UN's approval to fight back, but they did anyway, and member nations of the UN were free to send their soldiers to be slaughtered there if they saw fit.
independence, territorial integrity, national unity
These are mutually contradictory goals.
The best example is Kosovo situation. Independence is (obviously) independent Kosovo, territorial integrity is Kosovo remaining part of Serbia and national unity is Kosovo becoming part of Albania. You can't support all of this goals at the same time.
They had to stop him before he did a China Social Credit Score Disinformation Doublespeak.
"RULES BASED INTERNATIONAL ORDER!!!" "Consistent enforcement of international law."The Sino-Soviet split and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only China watcher who remembers how to applaud.
Me, a DongFeng-41 hypersonic missile on it's way to Tel Aviv:
Don't harm non-cobatant civilians, but obliterate the heck out of their army and violent settlers
- Show
From: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/palestinians-have-right-use-armed-force-against-israel-says-china-icj
I don't think that applies for military conflict between states. Pretty sure the justification used there is another UN resolution that essentially freezes borders to what they were that year and doesn't allow for territorial change using military conflict or something along those lines.
- Show
Again, this seems like a pretty blatant contradiction. Not that it matters to a bunch of Settlers. But from the Unaligned perspective, it seems glaring.
Oh yeah, it definitely is. The excuse I think is that "Israel was defending itself whenever it captured new terrotory so it doesn't count". Which is also Russia's casus belli as well iirc lol
No it isn't. Russia is intervening on behalf of the people of Donbas fighting for their selfdetermination and their right to not be murdered by Ukrianian nazis. It would be more similar if let's say Egypt intervened in Gaza War by attacking Israel and you would defend Israel because of that.
Afaik the UN charter itself is the one that banned war between members and forbade annexation
The justification for Ukraine is territorial integrity, the ruling China is alluding to can easily apply to the Donbass, Luhansk, and Crimean republics
Donbas, Lubansk, and Crimea all have a right to self-determination and declared their independence.
It would be more like if Ireland invaded Northern Ireland. NI is part of the UK just like Donetsk was part of Ukraine, but it would be perverse to consider Ireland a colonizer in that context given the ethnic makeup and history of the place.
Maybe at worst you can frame it as Russian revanchism but even to go that far you have to simply discard any memory of the decade long civil war and politics of brutality that took place there before Russia got involved.
hamster condoms?
