I've tried to help elucidate why "those with a nature to steal land" would not be motivated or dissuaded based on arguments of utility. I have further tried to shed light on why it is challenging to assess motivation as a third party. Additionally, I think the terms being used aren't conducive to understanding the points everyone is making.
I did my best. I may have failed miserably. But I've done all I know to do at this point.
If they still took the land in the first place that would be "stealing". whatever is meant by that.
just because they found out after the fact the land wasn't usable, or they tried to give it to a third party doesn't make it not "stealing".
I steal something from the store, go home, try to use, find out it doesn't work, and then go back to the store to return it; I still stole it originally.
I steal something, then try to give it to someone else beyond the rightful owner, its still stealing.
you don't have to maintain possession of an object in order to have stolen it in the first place. a change of heart later doesn't undo the original action.
all that gets a lot more tricky if the usage of "stolen" means "annexed" or something else, but it could still apply as well.
if an HOA annexes my neighborhood, I may still own my house, but that HOA is now dictating the terms and conditions of my usage of my own house.
and this all assumes Israel nor Palestine/Gaza had a property tax that worked similar to over here. Maybe the land/building owner outright owned their property, Israel comes in, assesses property tax, and then can later take the land or building? I would call that stealing, regardless of how Israel claimed that land.
