If someone bought land adjacent from mine and didn’t have road access, I’d be completely within my rights to treat their use of an area of my land to leave theirs as trespassing. But if they have to choose between starving because they’re trapped without resources and the freedom to live or facing those consequences, can’t say I’ve made an actual good faith effort. I’ve left this choice: die on your land or die on mine. Sure, I could say it’s not my problem. But if they decide maybe instead of dying on either side they try to kill me instead that’s a problem. One that could have been prevented.
Discussion
I find it ridiculous to account for the wishes of the weaker side after they have been oppressed and systemically cut from the world for decades as legitimate threats to the powerful side that enjoyed unprecedented and unfair world support if compared to their neighbours, the actual land owners who were living there for centuries. Or have they? Who lived there first? "Of course, the side that I like did, history proves me right", anyone could say.
Anyway...
"Should they have the means, they would have done x and y." So comes the conclusion, "That's why the stronger side has to make sure the weaker one doesn't have ANY means of doing ANYthing".
What a fucking logic. Why doesn't every stronger side already wipe every weaker one and stop pretending so we could close the curtain on these shit shows for good?
I'm not sure what, in the eyes of some humans, is considered genocide. "It has the capability to have done it decades ago, but isn't" Wow! What we see now isn't a genocide; it is like a grilling party or something.