Addendum. My previous comment does not address how you define who the correct “owners” of a piece of the planet are. It just seems to strike me that whomever was residing there in 1920 or so is often held to be the default claimant. The government might change (re: Vietnam) but the dwellers there seem to have the claim.

I do not agree that this is the way it should be held in all cases, but it just appears to be the default as accepted in general by the current world civilization. And the best known cases where mass evictions/executions or refugee/starvation crisis-es have occurred (Armenia, Ukraine, Europe, Baltic “ethnic cleansing”, etc.) have drawn considerable criticism from other countries.

The Israel/Palestine case is a particular mess. The original settlement was mixed, and it’s been used as a political football for almost a hundred years at this point, including being a pawn in the superpower Cold War games. I, for one, believe that Israel has the right to exist in peace. Beyond that there is no simple solution that would fit in one paragraph, or probably even one page. Meanwhile, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas continue to prove that their main goal appears to be goading Israel rather than learning how to administer a territory and prove they are actually able to govern a country.