Is it okay that the UN wants to give away half of California to the Abujans, who currently live in Colombia!?
The Abujans are Native Americans. The group's Holy book, the Abuja, mentions that their ancient Holy Land is in the southern area of California, roughly extending from Los Angeles down to the Mexican border. There are some Abujans (a very small number, perhaps 2-10%) that live in Southern California now, in peace with everyone else. The UN has dominion over this southern part of California. Do you think it's okay if the UN declares a new State will be made in this part of California and it will serve as the Homeland for the Abuja, as it is their "Historical Homeland," referenced by their Holy Book. These Native Americans suffered greatly at the hands of Colombians; it was essentially a Holocaust. They didn't suffer at the hands of Southern Californians, though. They've essentially suffered everywhere they've been. They say they need this Homeland to be safe, since no one else accepts them. Millions of Abujans from around the World can then go to Southern California. Do you think it's a good idea for the UN to take the Land and Homes of the people that currently live in Southern California and designate it the new Homeland for the Abuja? No? Do you think that Southern Californians, Northern Californians, and Americans in general might consider this to be a little Unjust? You think they might fight back? Yes? Then you kind of understand how Palestinians feel. Christian AND Muslim Palestinians. Here's a site that is maintained by a troupe of PhD students at Harvard, Stanford, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and the London School of Economics, in addition to contributing scholars, that describes what Americans NEED TO KNOW about the situation in Palestine and Israel: Here it is again: http://www.ifamericansknew.org/ LOLOL: yes, Israel paid for all of the land that it took from Palestinians.
Politics - 4 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
the UN has no authority to determine or assign borders. as for palestine, the land was paid for....payment was accepted, and that is what makes a contract.
2 :
It was a bad solution, but it would still be workable if Israel wasn't trying to build their idiotic settlements and just piss everyone off in general because they have our support..
3 :
Until I got to the end, I was fuming - I was going to say that if it's OK to give Palestine to the Israelis on the basis that it is their ancient Holy Land, then the Americans shouldn't bitch about having to give some of their own territory away for the same reasons. Americans seems to want their cake and eat it. I think I see where you are coming from now.
4 :
Israel was never "bought." The Faisal-Weizmann agreement was between the Zionists and the Turks, and had no participation whatsoever of the people living in Palestine. It'd be like the UN paying for Southern California to China, and they forcing the USA to accept based on its giant debt to China.
Read more other entries :
