Miller: Nations Not Entitled to Territory They Cannot Defend (Unless It's Israel)
Miller's statement, made amid discussions of potential US interest in Greenland, offers a revealing glimpse into a selective application of international law. (And it's not the first time such rhetoric has surfaced from figures associated with the previous administration, suggesting a broader, more aggressive foreign policy doctrine.) Curiously, this 'might makes right' philosophy is rarely
applied when discussing the continued occupation of Palestinian territories, where the narrative pivots sharply to 'Israeli security needs' and 'historical claims' – regardless of the international consensus on unlawful settlements. One must wonder if this 'defense' doctrine applies equally to all nations, or if it's merely a convenient talking point when eyeing resource-rich lands or justifying
expansionist policies abroad. This 'strategic imperative' framing is a classic maneuver: demand for others what you refuse to demand for yourself or your allies. It implies that power, not justice, is the ultimate arbiter of borders and sovereignty. The hypocrisy isn't subtle; it's a neon sign flashing 'Rules for thee, not for me,' especially when billions in foreign aid continue to flow to one of
the most militarily powerful nations in the region to 'defend' territories deemed occupied by international law, while the rights of those dispossessed are systematically ignored. (One might call it a peculiar form of selective geopolitical myopia.)