In a perfect world conflict would be settled not by armed conflict but by justice which applies to everyone regardless of tribe. For example in Bosnia it was apparently wrong for the Serb and Croatian entities to want to break away so NATO stopped them. Then in Kosovo NATO supports the break away from Serbia. Now how is it both right and wrong for people to break away? Logically this is not possible. To me this seems like the operation of double standards.
I conducted a survey to find out who people thought had the right to the land. Not a statistically significant sample but 7 thought whoever had the biggest army. Probably the most realistic answer. 7 said a people who were originally there and 4 said a people who came along afterwards who live there now. The reason I asked this question is that to my mind it is the key principle at stake in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Now at one time I would have answered that the original people had the rights but then I realised that this principle would cause endless wars. As we all came from Africa we could all easily claim origin in another part of the world. The principle of who is there first would justify the Red Indians reclaiming America, recovery of German lands in Poland, Finland reclaiming Karelia from Russia and so on. No the only principle which could serve peace is the status quo. If its right for Jews to reclaim Israel then it justifies war in similar circumstances everywhere. Me I'm off to reclaim Normandy for the English throne. Anyone coming?