[mattmanser]

Err, we did actually pay for it.

And what connection do the "natives" have, they weren't native to it. They'd lived there less than 200 years and were French speakers.

It's not an indigenous population.

It's more complicated than you claim.

I'm pretty strongly anti-colonial, but this ain't that and it takes the piss to frame it like it is.

[raesene9]

how many generations of people have to live somewhere to be considered "native" then.

In this case we're talking what 4-5 generations, depending on how you count it, that sounds fairly native to me.

The UK acted poorly here and the pressure that this vote applies to them is good, as if anyone has a right to the islands it's the people who lived there for hundreds of years.

[mattmanser]

So when do we get to stop wringing our hands about the Israelis?

They've been there well over 100 years now, settlement by the Israelis started in the 1870s. Are they now native?

It's never going to be an easy thing to resolve. Ultimately, if you settle someone else's sovereign land, don't be surprised if you don't get to just claim it unless you've got the guns, tanks and bombers to back it up.

[raesene9]

I'm not sure what the connection here is to the Israeli situation, an entirely different and also complex situation.

Here the UK government acted unethically and (according to the UN) illegally in displacing people who had been resident on these islands for a long time.

That pressure is being brought to bear on them for this, seems like a good thing.

[mattmanser]

Predominantly white colonials buying Palestinian land, forming an independent state and then kicking out all the indigenous people.

You can't see the connection? At all?

I don't see what the point is in discussing this with you, some how you've decided that land bought and paid for should be given back to a people that didn't even come from there past a handful of generations.

And somehow this is 'ethical'.

What a load of nonsense.

I would point out that there were a huge number of abstentions. So don't think the UN were unanimous on this.

[raesene9]

So the Chagosian situation didn't have individuals buying land, it was a state (the UK) insisting on a deal to a much less powerful nation and then evicting all the citizens by force.

It's relatively clear from the wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagos_Archipelago_sovereignty...) that the government of Mauritius were under the impression that their being granted independence from the UK depended on their agreeing to hand over the Chagos Islands

the key quote from British records being

"in theory, there were a number of possibilities. The Premier and his colleagues could return to Mauritius either with Independence or without it. On the Defence point, Diego Garcia could either be detached by order in Council or with the agreement of the Premier and his colleagues. The best solution of all might be Independence and detachment by agreement, although he could not of course commit the Colonial Secretary at this point."

To quote the BBC (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48371388) "Mauritius says it was forced to give up the Indian Ocean group"

The UK has a long history of gunboat diplomacy, this is just one example I would suggest.

As to the "huge number of abstentions", the vote was 116-6 of those that voted, not exactly a close outcome...