Quote:
Originally Posted by _Q_
Maybe, just maybe, they don't slaughter and murder because they have rights?
If you were under a brutal military occupation, my guess is you also wouldn't be very happy about it.
|
For almost 20 years they weren't occupied and then decided to murder a bunch of civilians. Did Gazans not have rights in Gaza? If you were under a occupation you would then want to kill women and children? How do you sit there and claim moral authority over anyone, thats psychopathic behavior.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
Do you just make up arguments to refute? Nice you admit Israel is guilty of taking land, though. Big step! You know collective punishment is a war crime though, right? So their is no justification to punish those in Jerusalem over the actions of Hamas. It's not "both sides" because their aren't two sides here. Not unless every civilian has lined up in full support of Hamas, and I assume you don't believe that.
I also have to assume the answer is a resounding no, you don't see it as inhumane, since you didn't answer. That just tells me and everyone else how little humanity you have left in you.
|
I said it's disputed, a matter for the courts. I love how all Israelis are "guilty of stealing land" but only Hamas is guilty of mass murder. Like you even try to degrade someone who just moved to Israel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden
There was and is a robust legal framework that justifies the displacement of of Indigenous nations from their land in North America.
Because this is a Calgary based forum, I will start with Treaty 7, which is still used to define land ownership and the land based rights of Indigenous peoples. It was signed in 1877 and allowed for a peaceable construction of a trans-continental railway, and peaceable settlement. While the agreement enriched settler society it further impoverished the Blackfoot confederacy and Stoney nation, and all but ignored Metis Land rights.
In fact in Alberta, all land ownerships rights have been transferred to the Crown it was the first province to do so. finalizing their agreement in 1905.
It is Legally sound document, but morally wrong, and allowed for several on going abuses of Indigenous peoples.
Now, if you were from British Columbia, or the Provinces east of Ontario, the legal agreements of land transfer do not exist. This is why they call it unceded land. In the Maritimes they suggest that they're land ownership was won through conquest. Being that most Indigenous nations were killed ( and diseased) to near extinction there nearly 500 years ago ( see the beothuk or Huron) the legal and moral balance is more complicated.
However, In BC, it is a cluster #### because just over 100 years ago, they Britain stole the land and the legal ramifications of such have only been allowed to make it to court in any successful manner in the 1980s. Previous to then it was seen as legally sound ( but morally wrong) to consider the hereditary land rights of Nations in BC as non existent. That said. The current supreme court has a very favorable interpretation of the hereditary rights of Indigenous peoples, and the political will of Settler Society at large is less hostile than it has ever been. In the next 50 years we will see some big decisions come in that province.
|
If only the Palestinians would sign a treaty, maybe they should have signed one of the twenty they have been offered. Crazy how it works when a people can actually accept a peace deal and the two sides can move on hey? But nah hostages are the next best thing I guess.