4 ms·

If 2 families solely inhabited (owned) an island, since pre-history, and Family 1 sells the entire island to newcomers, while Family 2 takes no part in the deal

If 2 families solely inhabited (owned) an island, since pre-history, and Family 1 sells the entire island to newcomers, while Family 2 takes no part in the deal or its approval, and does not cede their land to the purchase, then any court in the land will, quite rightly, hear Family 2's case that they are still the owner of their regions of the island. Why would that be different here?

wahnfrieden 3y ago
See the Louisiana Purchase for instance. Or the founding of Israel by Britain.
- wolfhumble 3y ago
  > Or the founding of Israel by Britain. Jerusalem, City of David, was conquered by David more than 3000 years ago. The founding of Israel was not built out of thin air.
  - pcthrowaway 3y ago
    So you're saying the city was forceably taken away from its prior owners 3000 years ago? Now I'm curious who those were
    - bawolff 3y ago
      The Jebusites (who were a type of cannanite) if you believe the bible. If you don't believe the bible... while who knows if the battle is even a real historical event. If you are trying to make some allusion to modern events i think its pretty silly to talk about 3000 year old battles that way, and even if you did, both sides of the battle are probably more closely related to modern jews than any other modern ethnic group, albeit who really knows when our only written source is the bible.
      - pcthrowaway 3y ago
        > If you are trying to make some allusion to modern events i think its pretty silly to talk about 3000 year old battles that way, and even if you did, I neither believe in the bible, nor think some events from 3000 years ago should have any bearing on who has a fair claim to the land today. But if someone is going to use a conquest from 3000 years ago as an explanation for why the Israeli government is justified in ruling the land and occupying territories within it, I think the identity of the owners prior to that conquest is more relevant.
    - jazzyjackson 3y ago
      See "Who’s Killing Who? A Viewer’s Guide" by Nina Paley: https://blog.ninapaley.com/2012/10/01/this-land-is-mine/ https://blog.ninapaley.com/2012/10/01/this-land-is-mine/
      - wahnfrieden 3y ago
        Garbage pro-colonialist perspective which treats anti-colonial struggle as fanaticism
  - wahnfrieden 3y ago
    Irrelevant
    - rayiner 3y ago
      Seems pretty relevant.
      - wahnfrieden 3y ago
        It is irrelevant to the conditions of the time which the Nakba was carried out, and irrelevant to the topic: >If 2 families solely inhabited (owned) an island, since pre-history, and Family 1 sells the entire island to newcomers, while Family 2 takes no part in the deal or its approval, and does not cede their land to the purchase, then any court in the land will, quite rightly, hear Family 2's case that they are still the owner of their regions of the island. Which describes the Balfour Declaration if Family 2 accounted for over 90% of the territory. The current Likud party also recognizes their claim to the territory "from the river to the sea" does not involve the will of its other residents, as in the Family 1 & 2 story: > Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.
        rayiner 3y ago
        > It is irrelevant to the conditions of the time which the Nakba was carried out Why is that the relevant time? If somehow native Americans got together and took back Oklahoma, would white Americans have any basis to complain? I would say no.
        wahnfrieden 3y ago
        You’re saying Palestinians stole the land and deserved losing it
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
- wk_end 3y ago
  Israel wasn't founded by Britain. The UN is effectively what created Israel. Britain acquired the region ("Mandatory Palestine") after WWI as a temporary measure to govern it until it was self-sustaining; that never happened, and in the wake of WWII, they mostly just wanted out of the situation and left the UN responsible. The UN voted on a partition plan - and the UK actually abstained from that vote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_...
  - TeaBrain 3y ago
    Israel certainly wasn't founded by Britain, whose forces had simply abandoned the region after the Mandate expired in 1948, but the UN partition only set the stage for the eventual territorial bounds of Israel, as the partition plan was never actually implemented. What cemented Israel's official modern territorial bounds were the 1949 Armistice Agreements following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, which resulted in Israel controlling 60% of the land that was not originally defined for the Jewish State in the partition plan. According to the 1947 partition plan, Israel was not going to extend to Jerusalem, but the captured territory did extend to this point by the time of the 1949 armistice, as well as extending to most of the land border with Egypt which minimized the Gaza region's border with Egypt, and extending along Lebanon, which prevented the West Bank from sharing a border with Lebanon, as was intended in the partition plan.
nightowl_games 3y ago
I'm talkin about family 3 here...

wahnfrieden 3y ago

See the Louisiana Purchase for instance. Or the founding of Israel by Britain.

wolfhumble 3y ago
> Or the founding of Israel by Britain. Jerusalem, City of David, was conquered by David more than 3000 years ago. The founding of Israel was not built out of thin air.
- pcthrowaway 3y ago
  So you're saying the city was forceably taken away from its prior owners 3000 years ago? Now I'm curious who those were
  - bawolff 3y ago
    The Jebusites (who were a type of cannanite) if you believe the bible. If you don't believe the bible... while who knows if the battle is even a real historical event. If you are trying to make some allusion to modern events i think its pretty silly to talk about 3000 year old battles that way, and even if you did, both sides of the battle are probably more closely related to modern jews than any other modern ethnic group, albeit who really knows when our only written source is the bible.
    - pcthrowaway 3y ago
      > If you are trying to make some allusion to modern events i think its pretty silly to talk about 3000 year old battles that way, and even if you did, I neither believe in the bible, nor think some events from 3000 years ago should have any bearing on who has a fair claim to the land today. But if someone is going to use a conquest from 3000 years ago as an explanation for why the Israeli government is justified in ruling the land and occupying territories within it, I think the identity of the owners prior to that conquest is more relevant.
  - jazzyjackson 3y ago
    See "Who’s Killing Who? A Viewer’s Guide" by Nina Paley: https://blog.ninapaley.com/2012/10/01/this-land-is-mine/ https://blog.ninapaley.com/2012/10/01/this-land-is-mine/
    - wahnfrieden 3y ago
      Garbage pro-colonialist perspective which treats anti-colonial struggle as fanaticism
- wahnfrieden 3y ago
  Irrelevant
  - rayiner 3y ago
    Seems pretty relevant.
    - wahnfrieden 3y ago
      It is irrelevant to the conditions of the time which the Nakba was carried out, and irrelevant to the topic: >If 2 families solely inhabited (owned) an island, since pre-history, and Family 1 sells the entire island to newcomers, while Family 2 takes no part in the deal or its approval, and does not cede their land to the purchase, then any court in the land will, quite rightly, hear Family 2's case that they are still the owner of their regions of the island. Which describes the Balfour Declaration if Family 2 accounted for over 90% of the territory. The current Likud party also recognizes their claim to the territory "from the river to the sea" does not involve the will of its other residents, as in the Family 1 & 2 story: > Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.
      - rayiner 3y ago
        > It is irrelevant to the conditions of the time which the Nakba was carried out Why is that the relevant time? If somehow native Americans got together and took back Oklahoma, would white Americans have any basis to complain? I would say no.
        wahnfrieden 3y ago
        You’re saying Palestinians stole the land and deserved losing it
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
wk_end 3y ago
Israel wasn't founded by Britain. The UN is effectively what created Israel. Britain acquired the region ("Mandatory Palestine") after WWI as a temporary measure to govern it until it was self-sustaining; that never happened, and in the wake of WWII, they mostly just wanted out of the situation and left the UN responsible. The UN voted on a partition plan - and the UK actually abstained from that vote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_...
- TeaBrain 3y ago
  Israel certainly wasn't founded by Britain, whose forces had simply abandoned the region after the Mandate expired in 1948, but the UN partition only set the stage for the eventual territorial bounds of Israel, as the partition plan was never actually implemented. What cemented Israel's official modern territorial bounds were the 1949 Armistice Agreements following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, which resulted in Israel controlling 60% of the land that was not originally defined for the Jewish State in the partition plan. According to the 1947 partition plan, Israel was not going to extend to Jerusalem, but the captured territory did extend to this point by the time of the 1949 armistice, as well as extending to most of the land border with Egypt which minimized the Gaza region's border with Egypt, and extending along Lebanon, which prevented the West Bank from sharing a border with Lebanon, as was intended in the partition plan.

nightowl_games 3y ago

I'm talkin about family 3 here...