kashifshah

joined 1 year ago
 

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.

[–] kashifshah@lemmy.sdf.org 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?

[–] kashifshah@lemmy.sdf.org 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?

[–] kashifshah@lemmy.sdf.org 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.

[–] kashifshah@lemmy.sdf.org 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?

[–] kashifshah@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 5 months ago

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

[–] kashifshah@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 5 months ago

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

[–] kashifshah@lemmy.sdf.org 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 !politics@lemmy.ml checking things out.

[–] kashifshah@lemmy.sdf.org 2 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

[–] kashifshah@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 5 months ago

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

[–] kashifshah@lemmy.sdf.org 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.

[–] kashifshah@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 5 months ago (14 children)

Hah, hello neighbor :D

I'm curious how universal these political typologies could be made. I'm sure this one might apply a great deal to a number of western countries, if you change the names accordingly, etc.

[–] kashifshah@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-range_Wi-Fi

:D

I'll see if i can find something specifically about what you are asking, but I would be surprised if anyone has taken the time to try to bounce WiFi. The wavelength might not be amenable to bouncing, as it is such a high frequency signal. If I recall correctly, there is a relatively narrow range of wavelength that will actually bounce back to earth off of the atmosphere.

edit: https://radiojove.gsfc.nasa.gov/education/activities/iono.html

 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/17800034

archive.org link

According to Reuters, he is accusing the company of discrimination, wrongful termination and showing a pattern of bias against Palestinians. Hamad said he noted procedural irregularities on how the company handled restrictions on content from Palestinian Instagram personalities, which prevented them from appearing in feeds and searches.

 

archive.today link

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/17713203

“Backed by two powerful house leaders, the proposed “Legislative Proposal to Sunset Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act” would eliminate the protections granted to internet platform providers under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. “

 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/17795616

archive.org link

I see no reason why, after the Fediverse has found a solid moral ground, it shouldn’t put this up to the test against Meta and try to win over some terretory with it. Actually, it seems like the most sensible thing to do. Because we want to bring these digital rights to as many people as possible, and for that, we need to partially federate with Meta.

 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/17796500

archive.org link

The field of social development has seen three major approaches to dealing with problems:

the Charity Model

the Needs-Based Approach

the Rights-Based Approach

For half a century, developing nations were arguing at the United Nations sessions for the need to recognize the right to development as a human right. With a growing globalization process and several political changes around the world, and with increasing pressure from developing nations, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Right to Development.

“The right to development is an inalienable human right by virtue of which every human person and all peoples are entitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realised.”

This declaration gave a strong boost to the Rights-Based Approach to development and marked a new era in social development.

 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/17713638

““If we jail Trump, get rid of Maga, end the electoral college, ban voter ID, censor free speech, we’ll save democracy,” says one meme in a QAnon channel on Telegram that depicts Biden in a Nazi uniform with a Hitler mustache”

Apparently they at least understand their opponent’s view .

 

Title says it all, I hope.

view more: next ›