Israel declares war on Hamas

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Pointman

That's exactly what happened. But if you have any sources to the contrary, I'm willing to read them

OK, well, if you’re convinced Israelis owned those properties despite forging documents and documents that point to the contrary, then when will Israel be giving back all the homes and property that were rightly owned by Palestinians prior to 1948 in West Jerusalem and Israel?

[Fuzz]

Pointman, regardless of legal standing, do you think this is morally right to do? Kick a family out of a home built for them decades ago, because someone dug further back in history to claim ownership? To systematically displace a population, contravening the Geneva conventions? To what end? In your heart, is this right?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Pointman

So, you no longer claim theft, right? Those families never owned homes, nor land. Neither Jordan legal system, nor Israel legal system gave them ownership. Your whole argument is that under "reasonable" legal system they should have been given the ownership, but they were not. It's a far cry from "theft", let alone war crime, don't you think?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention


This will explain why it is a breech. Read it. Particularly this bit:

Articles 47–78 impose substantial obligations on occupying powers. As well as numerous provisions for the general welfare of the inhabitants of an occupied territory, an occupier may not forcibly deport protected persons, or deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into occupied territory

Settlements, and taking a home that a Palestinian family has lived in for 70 some odd years and giving it to an Israeli family through the court system is, even to the Skootenbeeten's of this world, a blatant obvious breech. Beyond that, Isreal has been condemned for this practice by pretty much every authority and expert on Earth(non Israeli). So it's got pretty good general support as FACT. I hope that clears this up, and we can move on.

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Pointman, regardless of legal standing, do you think this is morally right to do? Kick a family out of a home built for them decades ago, because someone dug further back in history to claim ownership? To systematically displace a population, contravening the Geneva conventions? To what end? In your heart, is this right?

Lol this guy has so much hatred for Palestinians, it's unfathomable. No shred of sympathy to be found.

[keenan87]

Wasn't Pointman the poster everyone was cheering for to get out of a scary situation and to safety? It's unfortunate that someone who just dealt with that experience has such a negative view on other folks.

Or I am wrong and that was a different poster.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by keenan87

Wasn't Pointman the poster everyone was cheering for to get out of a scary situation and to safety? It's unfortunate that someone who just dealt with that experience has such a negative view on other folks.

Or I am wrong and that was a different poster.

No you are correct.

He was in Russia.

Put up some odd posts, kinda defending the invasion, then conscription hit and he hightailed it out of town.

[Hot_Flatus]

It still amazes me how anyone can look at this iteration of the conflict and absolve or even minimize either side of significant blame when this has just been coming to the head with relatively minimal blows by comparison year after year. Its disgusting that this conflict rages on and on for decades, and now has obviously gone off the deep end altogether.

What Hamas did to ignite this latest assault was disgraceful, and what Israel continues to do now doing is just as disgraceful, and to be honest far worse. I don't know what the answer is moving forward, but one thing's for sure, this latest conflict is going to breed an entirely new version of ISIS or Hamas or whatever that is far worse and extreme due simply to the fact that so many young Palestinians will be radicalized over having friends and family horrifically obliterated.

[_Q_]

Pointman can argue that the West Bank and Gaza are an independent nation and a few sentences later argue that it is all "disputed territory" where Israel's rigged laws apply.

Truly breathtaking!

[TheIronMaiden]

When the dust settles, all the legal documents in the world will not abstain guilt.

[Skootenbeeten]

People living on literal stolen land in North America and subjugating the indigenous population are moralizing someone living in Israel under constant threat of rocket attack. When they can't prove pointman wrong they just start calling him immoral for following the letter of the law.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Skootenbeeten

People living on literal stolen land in North America and subjugating the indigenous population are moralizing someone living in Israel under constant threat of rocket attack. When they can't prove pointman wrong they just start calling him immoral for following the letter of the law.

Yes, if you ignore the Geneva convections and accept "the letter of the law" as whatever Israel decides, then sure.


Do you think it is at least immoral to do this, as I asked Pointman? Keeping in mind these individuals did not kidnap, rape or shoot anyone.

As to Canada and it's ugly complicated history, yes, Israel could learn a thing or two. You will notice we don't evict them from their homes while bombing and maiming their children in this modern day and age. Times have changed. We are righting past wrongs. Israel is still in the "wronging" phase, and that is why we condemn. We should all know better about subjecting a people to inhumane treatment, collective group punishment, and starvation. Jews, least of all MUST know better, right? I know I do. Do you?

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by Skootenbeeten

People living on literal stolen land in North America and subjugating the indigenous population are moralizing someone living in Israel under constant threat of rocket attack. When they can't prove pointman wrong they just start calling him immoral for following the letter of the law.

Are we still stealing First Nations land? Are we creating laws that purposefully screw them out of land ownership? Is it illegal for them to move out of their reserves and settle in the rest of Canada? Do we have white only roads build through their territory? Are they denied Canadian citizenship and the right to vote? Or have we, as a society said, "you know what, that's enough. Here's your piece, here's ours, let's move on."

I'm hoping one day soon, Israel can just be satisfied with what they have and just accept that the Palestinians are in fact, also humans.

[Skootenbeeten]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Yes, if you ignore the Geneva convections and accept "the letter of the law" as whatever Israel decides, then sure.


Do you think it is at least immoral to do this, as I asked Pointman? Keeping in mind these individuals did not kidnap, rape or shoot anyone.

As to Canada and it's ugly complicated history, yes, Israel could learn a thing or two. You will notice we don't evict them from their homes while bombing and maiming their children in this modern day and age. Times have changed. We are righting past wrongs. Israel is still in the "wronging" phase, and that is why we condemn. We should all know better about subjecting a people to inhumane treatment, collective group punishment, and starvation. Jews, least of all MUST know better, right? I know I do. Do you?

So now Israel is bombing them in the west bank? Its funny how when it suits your needs you include things from Gaza but you ignore everything Palestinians do in Gaza. One side might be guilty of taking disputed land in West Bank and the other side rapes and murders and kidnaps people, truly a "both sides" situation here.

[Skootenbeeten]

Originally Posted by _Q_

Are we still stealing First Nations land? Are we creating laws that purposefully screw them out of land ownership? Is it illegal for them to move out of their reserves and settle in the rest of Canada? Do we have white only roads build through their territory? Are they denied Canadian citizenship and the right to vote? Or have we, as a society said, "you know what, that's enough. Here's your piece, here's ours, let's move on."

I'm hoping one day soon, Israel can just be satisfied with what they have and just accept that the Palestinians are in fact, also humans.

That's right because the indigenous here don't slaughter and murder and start wars. They have accepted their little blocks of land that they have been placed into. They have accepted that Canada has a right to exist and they don't have a right to kill anyone they get their hands on. That is truly how a people can move on.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Skootenbeeten

People living on literal stolen land in North America and subjugating the indigenous population are moralizing someone living in Israel under constant threat of rocket attack. When they can't prove pointman wrong they just start calling him immoral for following the letter of the law.

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.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Skootenbeeten

So now Israel is bombing them in the west bank? Its funny how when it suits your needs you include things from Gaza but you ignore everything Palestinians do in Gaza. One side might be guilty of taking disputed land in West Bank and the other side rapes and murders and kidnaps people, truly a "both sides" situation here.

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.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by Skootenbeeten

That's right because the indigenous here don't slaughter and murder and start wars. They have accepted their little blocks of land that they have been placed into. They have accepted that Canada has a right to exist and they don't have a right to kill anyone they get their hands on. That is truly how a people can move on.

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.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Skootenbeeten

That's right because the indigenous here don't slaughter and murder and start wars. They have accepted their little blocks of land that they have been placed into. They have accepted that Canada has a right to exist and they don't have a right to kill anyone they get their hands on. That is truly how a people can move on.

I will start by saying that I am not an Indigenous person, but I have worked at length with Indigenous peoples with respect to the historical legacy of colonialism.

With that in mind, your assumptions with respect to the First Nations in Canada as misleading you.

There are hundreds of Indigenous nations in Canada today, there were many more before 1800. There are more than 12 language families with dozens more specific languages in Canada alone. Historically, these nations were not allied. they were at war. As such there are only a few examples pan Indigenous alliances in North America who fought colonial invaders. That said many groups fought independently and were systematically killed. It was a genocide.

The issues surrounding Indigenous solidarity only began to subside in 1960 when Indigenous peoples were allowed to access the legal system as equals.
No less geographical distance, and cultural differences play an important factor in Indigenous settler society relations.

Now they have a more united front, but the Canadian government and settler society are more receptive than ever with respect to making amends for the genocide which had occurred. Even so, it is a few and far between you meet an Indigenous person who wouldn't overthrow the Canadian government.


The two key differences are

1. Palestinians are culturally homogenous, and live in close proximity to each other.

2. Canada increasingly recognizes that they committed a genocide and are looking for ways to make amends and improve the lives of Indigenous peoples alive today.

[blankall]

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.

Seriously?

Do you think those treaties were negotiated fairly? Do you justify indigenous people being pushed onto reserves that make up a fraction of a percent of the land because of these treaties? Did the indigenous people negotiate residential schools?

How do you even sign away indigenous rights like that? One person makes a decision and then the indigenous rights for all of the people and their descendants are gone forever?

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by blankall

Seriously?

Do you think those treaties were negotiated fairly? Do you justify indigenous people being pushed onto reserves that make up a fraction of a percent of the land because of these treaties? Did the indigenous people negotiate residential schools?

No they were negotiated legally.

Not fairly.

There is a difference.