I have no confusion regarding this issue. I'm of the opinion that taking away someone else's land and establishing a climate of exclusivity on any basis is fundamentally wrong. I don't understand how it can be acceptable sometimes....when a people are displaced and those remaining experience a greatly diminished quality of life under an authority that is less interested in attaining a co-operative mutual climate of shared perspectives than they are in limiting the rights of those people who remained even after their land was taken.
European's used every device available to legitimize the fluidity of "agreements" made with native North Americans and organized religions worked to subvert and destroy the culture and spirit of those same people. Whether the native folk of North America or Central America or South America, the story's the same. And while this behaviour is regarded by some as the appropriate outcome following the "conquering" of abroriginal populations, many others feel that this long history of oppression and displacement is quite similar to the conditions experienced by Palestinians and yet our friend Bear has made it quite clear that one ought not equate one circumstance with the other....
Perhaps I don't understand how the law of Britain and France as executed under various governments in Canada to introduce commerce and religion as the instruments of greatest propriety in re-shaping the landscape of Canada to suit the entrepreneurs and railroad barons of yesteryear is vasty different than the decision taken by Britain and the United States and thirteen other nations including Canada to hand exclusivity to the Israelis and rigorously pursue a policy of disenfranchisement and oppression on those remaining.
I'll argue that there are far greater similarities and commonalities between these two situations than there are differences.
Only the wealthy white folk prospered enormously from this situation here and it seems obviously apparent that the folk in Israel who've been in charge of things since the resolution was passed experience a similar situation.
While in the case of Palestine and Israel the argument offered is that there's no going back...changing the dynamic of sanctioned oppression is perhaps something that could be examined but there's no reversing the U.N. resolution so far as returning this land to the greater majority of people who occupied that same land. Isn't it entirely the same to suggest that the "agreements" regardless of how anyone might "see" those agreements in terms of their legitimacy vis-a-vis the situation in Canada is just as equally unavailable to turning the clock back?
I'm prepared to entertain the argument that these two cases are so differnt that comparison is unfair, but help me to understand why it's unfair in one case to while acceptable in the other....