"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
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.
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.
It's UN 37/43, adopted 3 December 1982:
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
hexbear is fucking weird
i do not
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.
These are mutually contradictory goals.
wat
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.