ckaihatsu wrote:Then it should be *de*-recognized, for human rights abuses, at a bare minimum.
Should be? Isn't it nice that you can enjoy a freedom to express yourself from the comfort of your coach and simply say, - let those Jews if Israel simply be denied the right to self-determination, just because their presents in the Middle East does not suit my fancy. Who cares about the Jewish history, right? Great position to be in.
You might say, ok, - but then, what about the Palestinian Arabs? Sure those Arabs also have the SAME rights, but they do have 22 countries to live in. Even the Arabs of old Palestine can have their state, somewhere in Judea and Samaria, but as it turns out, they do not want that state, they want Israel to be renamed Palestine. I hope you see the problem?
So, - if the World were to follow your missguided suggestion, we will have a war that Arabs would surely lose with great casualties. Further, - just to humor you, - what if they win? Well, then we will have yet another failed Arab state, just like Syria or Lebanon, or half a dozen others.
I hope you see that it is easy to pretend to be a cowboy, it is infinitely more difficult to shoot right.
ckaihatsu wrote:You're unwittingly defending *all* land grabs with this line of reasoning -- Native Americans, aboriginals, indigenous, slaves, etc.
You think that *living* on the land is somehow not 'sufficient', and that the only thing to be 'officially' recognized is private property ownership.
Land grabs? What are those? You seem to be under the impression that the rights of an individual or a group of people are defined by their own demands or what they perceived as right or just. Far from it.
The rights are defined by the ruling power in accordance with the law as that ruling power sees fit to uphold. That's is all. It is that simple.
You may disagree, as it is your right. Then my point to you is this, - do something! Advocacy without any means of meaningful enforcement is pathetic. It is like the law without 'legal teeth'.
Indeed, the aboriginal peoples of our planet exist on the good will of the ruling powers, - everywhere, - the Americas or Australia as examples might be. The aboriginals only have rights because the ruling power allows them to have rights, not because they deserve to have rights. Nobody deserves the rights.
The only way to have them is either to ask the ruling power for them, while offering a compromise that the ruling power would agree too or fight and win them. There is no other choice. Your position in this matter is not only childish, but a contrary to the entire history of humans on this planet.
The reason things are as I say they are, is simple, - if you study physics, you'll know that path of minimum resistance is a natural path.
Further, the fact that a person or a group of people have a history of living on a particular section of land does not in any way guarantee that they have the right to continue living there, if the ruling power deems otherwise. You may go anywhere in world, any country, and that would be the case.
The state can take your home away from from you, hopefully compensate you for it, and you can say nothing about it. So, - what makes you think that Israel must function under different standards? Particularly that the Arabs of Palestine would have an immense difficulty proving their case in any court in the Western hemisphere.
You indulge in emotional fantasies. You show no understanding of the fabric of state-person relationships. I suggest education.
Anyway, the Palestinian Arabs fought and they lost. That is all.
ckaihatsu wrote:What should be the qualifications for *voting*, according to you?
Simple, - a passport. Have a passport, you may vote. Do you want to have a passport? Ok, but then I get to tell you how to behave. Fair?