• Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    The other side of the coin of self determination is having the force to ensure that. Britain holds the ground

    Russian holds the ground in parts of Ukraine, does that mean Russia should keep said land?

    Does the Israeli settlements in the occupied lands make the land Israeli land?

    Ownership is not going to be decided by us here, but to say that one country can just put their people there so the land is theirs now doesn’t make it legally so.

    • Apollo@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      Sure what I said sounds like that, if you ignore the first half of the comment you are replying to.

      • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Sure what I said sounds like that, if you ignore the first half of the comment you are replying to.

        Here’s the first and only sentence before the sentence I replied to …

        The principle of self determination is in the UN charter that you keep erroneously saying suggests the UK should hand over the islands because of.

        That has nothing to do with the questions I asked …

        The other side of the coin of self determination is having the force to ensure that. Britain holds the ground

        Russian holds the ground in parts of Ukraine, does that mean Russia should keep said land?

        Does the Israeli settlements in the occupied lands make the land Israeli land?

        I was asking specifically about your statement about “Britain holds the ground”.

        My point is just holding the ground is not enough to legally/ethically claim the land, especially if you’ve kicked out the people on said land that used to be there.