Predominantly white colonials buying Palestinian land, forming an independent state and then kicking out all the indigenous people.
You can't see the connection? At all?
I don't see what the point is in discussing this with you, some how you've decided that land bought and paid for should be given back to a people that didn't even come from there past a handful of generations.
And somehow this is 'ethical'.
What a load of nonsense.
I would point out that there were a huge number of abstentions. So don't think the UN were unanimous on this.
So the Chagosian situation didn't have individuals buying land, it was a state (the UK) insisting on a deal to a much less powerful nation and then evicting all the citizens by force.
It's relatively clear from the wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagos_Archipelago_sovereignty...) that the government of Mauritius were under the impression that their being granted independence from the UK depended on their agreeing to hand over the Chagos Islands
the key quote from British records being
"in theory, there were a number of possibilities. The Premier and his colleagues could return to Mauritius either with Independence or without it. On the Defence point, Diego Garcia could either be detached by order in Council or with the agreement of the Premier and his colleagues. The best solution of all might be Independence and detachment by agreement, although he could not of course commit the Colonial Secretary at this point."
You can't see the connection? At all?
I don't see what the point is in discussing this with you, some how you've decided that land bought and paid for should be given back to a people that didn't even come from there past a handful of generations.
And somehow this is 'ethical'.
What a load of nonsense.
I would point out that there were a huge number of abstentions. So don't think the UN were unanimous on this.