Why would that be different here?
Jerusalem, City of David, was conquered by David more than 3000 years ago. The founding of Israel was not built out of thin air.
>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.
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.
So in this case the Family 2 in Canada would be the Canadian people I would assume? It is always a question of how far back you go . . .
The Palestinians living in this geographical area have a connection based on the history of their families living in the area. The Jewish people have a connection to the area based on the fact that most of their culture was founded in the area, but were later driven out as consequence of Roman and Byzantine actions – wars, enslavement, expulsions etc. This of course is the root of the whole conflict (with the additional pressure from surrounding hostile nations).
From what you have written it sounds like you mean that the Jewish people have no connection to this area. You also put words in my mouth that I have not said: "You’re suggesting the 90% native Palestinian population previously stole the land"
This is a difficult conflict to solve because both sides have valid arguments. It doesn't help to pretend one side doesn't have any valid arguments at all.
> Herzl approached Britain because, he said, it was "the first to recognize the need for colonial expansion." According to him, "the idea of Zionism, which is a colonial idea, should be easily and quickly understood in England.38 In 1902 Herzl approached Cecil Rhodes, who had recently colonized the territory of the Shona people as Rho- desia. "You are being invited to help make history," he said in a letter to Rhodes. "It doesn't involve Africa, but a piece of Asia Minor; not Englishmen, but Jews. How, then, do I happen to turn to you since this is an out-of-the-way matter for you? How indeed? Because it is something colonial.
> Ronald Stort, The Memoirs of Sir Ronald Storr (New York: G.P. Putnams, 1937), 364. Stort, the first Briitish military Governor of Jerusalem Sir Ronald Storr described Zionist ambitions for Palestine as the creation of "a little loyal Jewish Ulster in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism."
Britain even wanted to avoid Isreal's current location [1] namely because jews and palestines have never gotten along.
As well as US and Britain both but an embargo of arms to isreal prior/during the 1948 war to appease the Arab states. Quite a different response than the current UA one where US/Britain have a vested interest in UA winning so they're a lot of support while in 1948 they'd prefer the Arabs winning.
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.
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.
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_...
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.