posted
So the recent discussions regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict got me to thinking:
Where does one draw the line on when national land-rights expire?
I was confused because no one seemed to be mentioning that the Palestinians have at least some right to be pissed about having their land taken away. (note: this is absolutely NOT an excuse for the deplorable actions that have taken place since then, but a discussion on what rights any people have on lands lost to them generations ago)
Other Examples: Does France have a right to all lands that America swindled from them in the Louisiana Purchase?
Do the various Native American tribes have a right to expell all european and later immigrants to reclaim their cultural territory? As a sidebar, if we completely wiped out various tribes can we still keep that land?
Do the Australian Aboriginees have a right to expell all the initially Brittish citizens from their continent?
Do the Italians have the right to kick everyone out of spain, most of europe, egypt, etc?
Do the Celts have a right to kick all the non-Celts out of Brittain?
Where does one draw the line? If X people are forcibly evicted from their land how long does it have to be before they no longer have a reasonable claim on said land? 10 years, 50 years, 100 years, 1000 years, 10000 years?
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Swindled France out its land? Napoleon didnt have to sell the land.
Its standard practice that after 12 years the land has officially switched hands.
Ok Ok. IMO:
While you are taking somebody elses lands people all throw a fit, in the aftermath they just stop caring once its apparent that its yours for keeps. Its a sad state of things but thats simply how it works as I see it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there's a difference between having a reasonable claim to the land and having a reasonable claim to just restitution for its loss.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
