Quote (ferdia @ Nov 11 2023 08:26am)
1. What do you mean, or what is your overarching principal, which has led to the statement "land conquered isn't stolen" ? Does this relates to all conquered nations everywhere? (btw This view suggests the principal might is right).
In general yes, might makes right. More to the point, might actually decides what happens, whether you agree with it or not. Virtually all land that changes hand through history is either conquered or purchased, that's just how its always been
Quote
2. "irredentist claims to lands are meaningless a generation or more removed" - this as i understand it relates to the principal that as Palestine was conquered and its peoples scattered decades ago, all claims to Palestinian ownership of said land is now irrelevant. Is this your interpretation/view?
When control of the land has been removed from living memory, nothing in the history books gives a valid claim to the present day. Its just the only way for a workable world, or we'd have the present day beholden to mutually exclusive claims of long dead tribes. The Jews had several
thousand years of history where they made the same impotent claims to land they couldn't control, even with nationalists fighting the romans ineffectively several times- and its only in the past hundred years they've had the force necessary to achieve it. Most Palestinians are under 18 years old, they have no more living memory of an arab jerusalem than a roman jerusalem, no more a claim than the italians at this point.
Contrast this with contemporary conflicts over land changing hands and spheres of influences, most obvious example being ukraine. There are threads being bumped on PARD older than some of the land changing hands, and the western powers seized with a coup d'etat control of lands they couldn't hold militarily, at least not in full- and certainly not the separatist regions they 'claim' jurisdiction over, but have never held for a single day since 2014. When its an active conflict and undecided, people can make whatever arguments of legitimacy they want
Quote
3. Based on (2) above, is this what is used to contend that the current expansion of Israeli settlements in the west bank and elsewhere are lawful, on account that the land is now Israeli, has been Israeli for decades, and therefore Palestinians currently living in the West Bank (or elsewhere in Israel) are living on borrowed time, effectively squatting there, until such time as Israel finds a use for the land, in which case, they seize the land, on the basis that they took the land decades ago, and all we are seeing now is the physical present manifestation of the war won decades ago. (On a side note, if this is the view of many Israeli's, then I am beginning to understand the Israeli logic re: the settlements). Is this also the reason for the apartheid state in Israel, on account that it is not the intention of Israel to recognize Palestinian identity, noting the country is now, and forever more, Israel ?
b.) this is probably a part of a) (above) - are you contending that any new lands seized, are not seized now, they were the spoils of war decades ago, but that Israel just did not get around to settling the area until now.
Except Palestinians still hold the lands in the west bank and gaza, recognized by Israel, even if they lack full self determination. Their continued existence and Israel's recognition and permission of it in the aftermath of the six day war is the status quo that would be overturned if Israel was expelling Palestinians "to find a use for the land". Israel recognizes lands it has purchased in the west bank, that other world powers deny, but it never claimed to seize all of the west bank for the jews. And yet it also describes that view of Israelis- that analogue to an apartheid state which isn't quite precise, because its more an issue of Israel's
tolerance for a hostile minority in spite of conquering their land and granting them limited autonomy and independence, as opposed to a colonial power staking full claim to a land and all its people yet treating them as second class citizens. If anything, a closer parallel would be indian reservations in america, particularly those where bitter wars were fought