2007-12-26 07:29:05 · 11 answers · asked by Constitution 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
rules are made to only suit the needs of those who can enforce them. but your point is understood.
another point is ...if france belongs to the french, india to the indian people, russia to the russian people, and china to the chinese people, and south africa to the black people etc...why is it that palestine does not belong to the palestinian people?
2007-12-26 07:33:35 · answer #1 · answered by theypissonourbacksandsayitsrain 1 · 4⤊ 0⤋
There is a big difference. Israel has NO INHERENT RIGHTS to any of the land in the middle east.
After World War 2 the Allied powers (England, France, The US), got together and decided that land belonging to the Palestinians was going to be a new country - Israel, and that it would be given as a place where European Jews could go and call it their own.
Note that it belonged to the Palestinians, but they were a weak conglomeration of tribes with no real organization or pull in the newly formed United Nations to resist this.
The North American natives on the other hand were here for thousands of years before the coming of the Europeans. The land was theirs, and subsequent treaties with the newly formed Gov. of the United States guaranteed them continuing rights.
These treaties were dishonored by the white man time & time again. More and more Indian land was infringed apon (illegally). Tribes were wiped out by shooting the women and children, or by giving them smallpox-infested blankets.
However, in the current Lakota decision to withdraw from the US, they are completely within their rights as spelled out in existing treaties. More power to them!
2007-12-26 15:58:10 · answer #2 · answered by pstottmfc 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, but only if they can...
"Might makes right" when nations are involved. Besides, If they could, they'd have to deal with whether the implications of their return contradicts their own interests or not, and by how much; this something Israel is doing right now.
2007-12-26 15:43:56 · answer #3 · answered by bablshams 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Which Indians? Lands changed hands often between different native tribes, and always violently...you know, the way we got it. What's the difference?
2007-12-26 15:38:00 · answer #4 · answered by thor_torkenson 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How far back do you want to take this, and when do you draw the line? And besides, the Indians are an example of what happens when you have no immigration laws or control of your borders.
2007-12-26 15:32:52 · answer #5 · answered by booman17 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Which lands did the UN give the Indians?
2007-12-26 15:34:04 · answer #6 · answered by wizjp 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yes, and the Indians will give it back to the other Indians who they got it from and they will have to gove it back to the buffalo who will give ti back to the grass who will give it back to the dirt who will give it back to ...... well, you get the point.
2007-12-26 15:34:34 · answer #7 · answered by hose_b 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
YES , but U know how the government works
2007-12-26 15:36:43 · answer #8 · answered by da.wezal 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, they never claimed to own them. They said they just lived off of them. No ownership= no right to claim them.
2007-12-26 15:32:49 · answer #9 · answered by bildymooner 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I think that the Natives had their chance.
2007-12-26 15:33:33 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋