Colonialism and anti-colonialism

Once upon a time there was colonialism, and now there is anti-colonialism. But, this is a deception, since no country and no place in the world is guaranteed to any particular group of people. For example, S. America was inhabited by many native tribes. Then the Spanish and Portuguese came along and with the Pope's consent in the treaty of Tordesillas in 1493 divided the continent into two. Portugal got Brazil and the Spanish got the rest, that was further divided into 12 countries (Argentina, Chile, Peru, Venezuela, etc.) Who gave them the right to do this? Noone, it was just power. Now Argentina claims the Falkland Islands, that they call the Malvinas, because they claim that Britain is a colonial power. But, Argentina itself is a colonial power (there are no Indians in Argentina they were all wiped out), and since the large majority of the inhabitants of the Falklands are British and don't want to be part of Argentina, then they should not be colonized by Argentina. Why should proximity be the deciding factor?

There is Gibralter, that has been owned and settled by the British for 300 years. In principle it belonged to noone, except for those who could capture it and hold it. Thus the Gibraltarians do not want to be part of Spain. That is anti-colonialism. All over Europe the many different language groups or tribes, French, German, Hungarian, Czech, Romanian, etc have had border disputes. By what right does any one of them have a greater claim to any piece of land between them. Alsace preferred to be French, even though German speaking, and French it became. The outcome was decided by wars and peace treaties.

Similarly, the Jews were undoubtedly in the Holy Land a thousand years before the Arabs came along and conquered it in 638 ce. Now suddenly it became part of the Islamic Empire that they spread by "the sword." If the Arabs went back to where they came from, to Arabia, that would simplify matters very much. But, having been here for hundreds of years they claim autonomy, the Palestinian Arabs claim the right to a State!. Why is it OK if they claim autonomy and not the Jews? The fact is that in international relations, the final deciding factor is not the Bible or dubious claims of ownership, but the ability to hang on to what you claim. Israel has a very legitimate claim, more than any other, but if she could not keep it against all comers, then there would be little point to the claim. Possession and the ability to defend it successfully are really what matter in international relations. That is what leads to the recognition of sovereignty. Why else is the US on the Pacific coast? Thanks to Lewis and Clark and the Gold rush. Why else is Russia in SIberia? Why else is England in Wales, Scotland and Ireland? Why else are the Arabs in N. Africa? Let them all go back to where they came from and leave us alone.