Neutral point here but what is the policy if a hypothetical tribe being genocided away was itself genocidal? How do you balance those interests in a humane, stablizing way?
the previous relevant comments refer not to a debate of policy, to be clear, simply a matter of fact.
in the context of this thread, the answer to your first question is: you have two genocidal tribes.
as for the second, I don’t have nearly enough information about your two theoretical tribes to offer an answer. how large are the two tribes? how are their genocides being perpetrated? why? where are the two tribes located, specifically and in relation to each other? are the two tribes related somehow? Why would you try to balance the interests of genocidal tribes instead of thwarting genocide? Why is it your responsibility to balance their interests? do you have the capability to balance their interests?
Neutral point here but what is the policy if a hypothetical tribe being genocided away was itself genocidal? How do you balance those interests in a humane, stablizing way?
entirely depends on the situation.
the previous relevant comments refer not to a debate of policy, to be clear, simply a matter of fact.
in the context of this thread, the answer to your first question is: you have two genocidal tribes.
as for the second, I don’t have nearly enough information about your two theoretical tribes to offer an answer. how large are the two tribes? how are their genocides being perpetrated? why? where are the two tribes located, specifically and in relation to each other? are the two tribes related somehow? Why would you try to balance the interests of genocidal tribes instead of thwarting genocide? Why is it your responsibility to balance their interests? do you have the capability to balance their interests?