kashifshah

joined 1 year ago
MODERATOR OF
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/19768980

archive.org link

In a historic ruling the International Court of Justice has found multiple and serious international law violations by Israel towards Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including, for the first time, finding Israel responsible for apartheid. The court has placed responsibility with all states and the United Nations to end these violations of international law. The ruling should be yet another wake up call for the United States to end its egregious policy of defending Israel’s oppression of Palestinians and prompt a thorough reassessment in other countries as well.

 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/19769250

Summary provided by https://notegpt.io/pdf-summary

Summary

The International Court of Justice has found that Israel’s policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, violate international law. The Court determined that Israel’s actions, such as its settlement policy, acts of annexation, and discriminatory legislation and measures, constitute a breach of international law, including the prohibition on the use of force and the non-acquisition of territory by force. Israel’s presence in the territory is deemed unlawful, and the Court has called for an end to settlement activities, evacuation of settlers, reparations for damages caused, and non-recognition of the illegal situation by states and international organizations.

Key Insights

  • The International Court of Justice has determined that Israel’s presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, violates international law.
  • Israel’s settlement policy, acts of annexation, discriminatory legislation, and measures were found to be in breach of international law.
  • The Court has called for an end to settlement activities, evacuation of settlers, reparations for damages, and non-recognition of the illegal situation.
  • The General Assembly and Security Council of the United Nations are tasked with considering further action to end Israel’s presence in the territory.
  • The Court emphasizes the importance of achieving a just and lasting peace in the region for the benefit of all parties involved.

Frequently Asked Questions

Question

What actions were deemed unlawful by the International Court of Justice in the Occupied Palestinian Territory?

Answer

The Court found Israel’s settlement policy, acts of annexation, discriminatory legislation, and measures to be in violation of international law.

Question

What measures did the Court call for to address Israel’s presence in the territory?

Answer

The Court called for an end to settlement activities, evacuation of settlers, reparations for damages caused, and non-recognition of the illegal situation.

Question

Which international organizations are obligated not to recognize the illegal situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory? Answer All states and international organizations are obligated not to recognize the illegal situation in the territory.

Question

What role do the General Assembly and Security Council of the United Nations play in addressing Israel’s presence in the territory?

Answer

The General Assembly and Security Council are tasked with considering further action to end Israel’s presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/19768980

archive.org link

In a historic ruling the International Court of Justice has found multiple and serious international law violations by Israel towards Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including, for the first time, finding Israel responsible for apartheid. The court has placed responsibility with all states and the United Nations to end these violations of international law. The ruling should be yet another wake up call for the United States to end its egregious policy of defending Israel’s oppression of Palestinians and prompt a thorough reassessment in other countries as well.

 

Summary provided by https://notegpt.io/pdf-summary

Summary

The International Court of Justice has found that Israel’s policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, violate international law. The Court determined that Israel’s actions, such as its settlement policy, acts of annexation, and discriminatory legislation and measures, constitute a breach of international law, including the prohibition on the use of force and the non-acquisition of territory by force. Israel’s presence in the territory is deemed unlawful, and the Court has called for an end to settlement activities, evacuation of settlers, reparations for damages caused, and non-recognition of the illegal situation by states and international organizations.

Key Insights

  • The International Court of Justice has determined that Israel’s presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, violates international law.
  • Israel’s settlement policy, acts of annexation, discriminatory legislation, and measures were found to be in breach of international law.
  • The Court has called for an end to settlement activities, evacuation of settlers, reparations for damages, and non-recognition of the illegal situation.
  • The General Assembly and Security Council of the United Nations are tasked with considering further action to end Israel’s presence in the territory.
  • The Court emphasizes the importance of achieving a just and lasting peace in the region for the benefit of all parties involved.

Frequently Asked Questions

Question

What actions were deemed unlawful by the International Court of Justice in the Occupied Palestinian Territory?

Answer

The Court found Israel’s settlement policy, acts of annexation, discriminatory legislation, and measures to be in violation of international law.

Question

What measures did the Court call for to address Israel’s presence in the territory?

Answer

The Court called for an end to settlement activities, evacuation of settlers, reparations for damages caused, and non-recognition of the illegal situation.

Question

Which international organizations are obligated not to recognize the illegal situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory? Answer All states and international organizations are obligated not to recognize the illegal situation in the territory.

Question

What role do the General Assembly and Security Council of the United Nations play in addressing Israel’s presence in the territory?

Answer

The General Assembly and Security Council are tasked with considering further action to end Israel’s presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

 

archive.org link

In a historic ruling the International Court of Justice has found multiple and serious international law violations by Israel towards Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including, for the first time, finding Israel responsible for apartheid. The court has placed responsibility with all states and the United Nations to end these violations of international law. The ruling should be yet another wake up call for the United States to end its egregious policy of defending Israel’s oppression of Palestinians and prompt a thorough reassessment in other countries as well.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

They’re just categorically different, there isn’t an “inside” or an “outside” in the sense of spatial structure as that is something derived a posteriori as part of thought.

So.. there are things that are either within the category of thought or not? Is thought mutually exclusive to material? Is thought composed of material or the other way around? Or are they both the same?

I’m not sure what it would even mean to say reality is “thought”.

That is the standard definition of idealism, is it not? That existence is immaterial?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (3 children)

But what justification is there that what is thought of is actually in existence outside of thought? One can think of things that do not exist outside of thought.

What justification is there that reality isn't thought by it's very nature?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (5 children)

How do you justify the premise that reality is objectively-existent?

 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/17907463

archive.org link

Decarbonization of the energy, transportation and industrial sectors by 2050 is a formidable challenge, and getting there will require significant use of nuclear power. But whether nuclear power figures into a country’s future energy mix or not, rigorous planning is needed to determine the clean energy composition that will work best depending on country-specific factors.

The publication, entitled ‘From Knowledge to Action: IAEA Toolkit for Sustainable Energy Planning’, was presented during a side event held on the margins of a meeting of the G20’s Energy Transitions Working Group in Belo Horizonte, Brazil.

 

archive.org link

Decarbonization of the energy, transportation and industrial sectors by 2050 is a formidable challenge, and getting there will require significant use of nuclear power. But whether nuclear power figures into a country’s future energy mix or not, rigorous planning is needed to determine the clean energy composition that will work best depending on country-specific factors.

The publication, entitled ‘From Knowledge to Action: IAEA Toolkit for Sustainable Energy Planning’, was presented during a side event held on the margins of a meeting of the G20’s Energy Transitions Working Group in Belo Horizonte, Brazil.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

also, apologies to everyone at lemmy.sdf.org if i am flooding local for you. i've been busy adding a bunch links

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

they also have an email address: membership at sdf dot org, but yeah, the internal BBS is where it is at.

We are a public access UNIX system, so it's not as much of a void as it might seem :D

 

Exciting for me that the community is actually getting some visitors.

This is my first time being a moderator for a community, so would be happy to receive any tips!

 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/17861239

archive.org link

To prevent these worst-case scenarios, we, the Inter-Agency Standing Committee Principals, urgently request the parties to the conflict to do the following:

Take immediate measures to protect civilians, including by refraining from directing attacks against them, allowing them to leave for safer areas, and ending sexual and gender-based violence. Facilitate unimpeded humanitarian access through all possible crossline and cross-border routes to allow civilians to receive humanitarian aid. Immediately cease all acts denying, obstructing and interfering with, or politicizing, humanitarian action. Simplify and expedite administrative and bureaucratic procedures related to the delivery of humanitarian aid. De-escalate the situation in Al Fasher and adopt a nationwide ceasefire. Stop human rights violations, including grave violations against children, and hold perpetrators accountable for their crimes.

We are also concerned by the limited support from donors. Nearly five months into the year – and six weeks after the International Humanitarian Conference for Sudan and its Neighbours in Paris on 15 April – we've received just 16 per cent of the $2.7 billion we need.

Donors must urgently disburse pledges made in Paris and fast-track additional funding for the humanitarian appeal. With a famine on the horizon, we must deliver much more life-saving aid now, including seeds for farmers before the planting season ends.

The clock is ticking. The choice is clear.

 

archive.org link

To prevent these worst-case scenarios, we, the Inter-Agency Standing Committee Principals, urgently request the parties to the conflict to do the following:

Take immediate measures to protect civilians, including by refraining from directing attacks against them, allowing them to leave for safer areas, and ending sexual and gender-based violence. Facilitate unimpeded humanitarian access through all possible crossline and cross-border routes to allow civilians to receive humanitarian aid. Immediately cease all acts denying, obstructing and interfering with, or politicizing, humanitarian action. Simplify and expedite administrative and bureaucratic procedures related to the delivery of humanitarian aid. De-escalate the situation in Al Fasher and adopt a nationwide ceasefire. Stop human rights violations, including grave violations against children, and hold perpetrators accountable for their crimes.

We are also concerned by the limited support from donors. Nearly five months into the year – and six weeks after the International Humanitarian Conference for Sudan and its Neighbours in Paris on 15 April – we've received just 16 per cent of the $2.7 billion we need.

Donors must urgently disburse pledges made in Paris and fast-track additional funding for the humanitarian appeal. With a famine on the horizon, we must deliver much more life-saving aid now, including seeds for farmers before the planting season ends.

The clock is ticking. The choice is clear.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (8 children)

Well, please do share what you find!

You are on the right track w/ idealism vs materialism in psychology, at least.

The question there arose from the brain: how do you rectify the mind/soul with the brain/body? Dualism apparently fails (the idea that there is a separate mind from the brain) which leaves only some form of monism. A sort of hybrid materialism-idealism seems to make the most sense, where consciousness is a property of the universe, like time or space, and different entities have differing consciousnesses. In that sort of a philosophy, when talking about the brain of a person you are equally talking about the experience that person is having, just in different terms.

I suspect that in sociology that would be some sort of unified anarcho-marxism, if such a thing exists. The atomic theory of society seems to be the thing where they are working on unifying language. If society is fully atomized, asking whether a new society arises due to free choice or resource demands is like asking whether rivers rise due to rain or sewer overflow, if that makes sense?

 

archive.org link

The Southern Transitional Council (STC) de facto authorities must reverse their unlawful takeover of the Aden-based Yemeni Women Union centre, an independent civil society organization, and ensure women and children residing in the centre’s shelter for survivors of gender-based violence are protected, said Amnesty International today.

On 26 May, a group of armed men accompanying women from the STC-supported Southern Women Union, took over the Yemeni Women Union centre building in Sira district in Aden governorate by force. They broke in, changed the locks to the centre’s entrance and main rooms, destroyed security cameras, and expelled the centre’s guard replacing him with a new STC affiliated armed guard. They also denied access to staff of the Yemeni Women Union and to women seeking protective services.

“Instead of guaranteeing the safety of women fleeing violence and strengthening the work of civil society organizations providing protective services, STC authorities have exposed them to further violence,” said Diala Haidar, Yemen researcher at Amnesty International.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

this was one of my favorite childhood games, thanks for posting this!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

apparently, depending on the language used, it will drive the easily angered on the right to insanity

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (10 children)

You are very welcome!

I'm glad to be able to be of appreciation, as I know how that is - looks like you are in the right place to discuss political science though!

In the interest of conversation, maybe you can explain or point me to an explanation of why Anarchism vs. Marxism is considered "idealism vs materialism" in sociology?

In Psychology, we had an "idealism vs materialism" debate, but it is mostly resolved with a sort of "idealistic materialism" or "materialistic idealism" where, essentially, "idealism <=> materialism", as I understand it.

I'm curious about what the current state of the art is, in that debate!

Either way, I'll definitely spend some time in [email protected] checking things out.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Have you read about the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights yet?

Based on my understanding, that treaty will require us to have universal healthcare and social security.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Economic,_Social_and_Cultural_Rights

https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/17708289

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

I think "Outsider Left" may have subsumed "Faith and Family Left" in the new version of the typology.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (12 children)

A good rule of thumb is to measure twice, cut once, so perhaps give it a try twice: once where you answer philosophically and once where you answer practically?

I'm due for taking it again, myself, but I generally consider myself a radical moderate (I'm all for system-wide changes) and I think Pew described me as "faith and family left" when I last took the test.

view more: next ›