Originally posted by noonebutme
reply to post by littlebunny
I think the differnce between the Israeli/Palestinian land issue and the America/Native Indian land issue you refer to is time and law.
When people came to North America from overseas and took up residence in what is now North America and displacing the natives, happened *before* we
had the UN, Internatinal Treaties, Human Rights laws and regulations, etc.
I'm not saying that makes what happened to the native Indians right or 'ok' by any means.
But the difference comes when comparing what happened with Israel - Israel took occupation of land that wasn't theirs in a time when we should
know better and have laws, bodies and regulations to manage, monitor and reguate these sorts of issues. Instead, Israel was allowed to take the
land and displace the Palestinians there and so far, have yet to give it back.
And this all happened under rules and regulations, meaning it should be *easy(ier)* to enforce a hand-back due to what was documented and observed by
a world body.
Well, that's why I think you can't compare the 2 scenarios with each other.
I know, how about every country that gained territory through military conquest, each country that has done so throughout history must give that
land back? NO? Hmm, what if the UN demanded it?
Well, I'm sure the are instances of that. Didn't the UK return sovereignty to Hong Kong? And Portugal to Macau? Netherlands and Indonesia? Or is
that not what you were referring to?
First, I would love to read where it is written anywhere in the UN Charter rules and regulations, that if a country is attacked and it wins, and
conquers land from its attackers, it must give the land back to the countries it defeated… You know give it back to the bastards who attacked you?
That's only fair!? Where, oh where is that written? And how is attacking a country and losing, and demanding the country you lost to, after
attacking them... how did you say that again... oh yeah... Is in the rules and regulations? The land being theirs is freaken mute, they have no leg
to stand on... Those countries ATTACKED Israel and lost. Israel rightfully decided to take those lands away, by all of human history they have that
right! Its not open for debate unless of course its against the Jews I guess!
Regarding the seconds statement… Hong Kong was given back to China by treaty, not anything the UN forced onto England. The UN has never told
England, or France, Or the Dutch or the US to give back lands they continue to hold across this planet. Why? That is an important question, isn’t
it? Now, England nor any other European Countries were asked to come aboard when they forced themselves into those countries, islands, yet in this,
enlightened age (as I laugh), why oh why is old Europe still around? Where the hell is the UN? Oh that's right, their not Jews...
Oh I see, Europe didn't defeat those who attacked them, oh thats right, they destroyed all those who were weaker and still control those areas today.
While Israel... They defeated their enemies who attacked them, how dare they!... BTW… Those lands don't belong to those so called Palestinians...
They absolutely belong to Israel, but they used to belong to Egypt, Syria, and Jordan... But because they legally lost those lands to Israel, now you
want us to believe these so called Palestinians deserve the land because they have murdered thousands and have terrorized millions for over 50 years?
That is madness!
IF that madness makes since under that warped concept/bastardization of reality… Why should that not work with the Indians and the Mexicans? I see,
if its over 90 years in one final battle and just over100 years ago with another final battle, well then, shut up world…. But if its been only 40
years... well hell the world has all the say so in the world!? Wow! That is brilliant logic, as long as you're taking stuff away from Jews!
WOW, just wow!
--Charles Marcello
[edit on 9-4-2009 by littlebunny]