Might makes truth... so who makes right?

When a state uses its power to change what exists on the ground, it can create a new reality, and others may be forced to deal with it, and it may last for years, perhaps turning with time into a familiar matter. But here the question emerges—which must not be left out of account—is: Does every imposed reality become a right simply because it has become a reality?

This is where the value of international law appears; the law fundamentally assumes that there are rules that transcend power balances, and that a state's ability to impose its will does not become a substitute for legitimacy, otherwise international law becomes ink on paper.

As is known, there are no constants in politics; it changes, alliances shift, adversaries become partners, and countries recalculate according to their interests. This is understandable in the world of politics.

Yet, there is a difference between changing a political stance and redefining truth and right.

It is natural for reality to change, for this is part of the laws of life, but its change alone is not enough to prove its legitimacy. Positions may change, but that does not mean history is required to change its truths with them. Therefore, distinguishing between reality, fact, and right is not an intellectual luxury:

Fact answers: What happened?

Reality says: What has come to exist?

As for right, it asks: Is what happened and what has become established just and legitimate?

Power can influence these questions, but morally and legally, it must not be the sole reference for answering them.

When the stronger party becomes able to impose reality, then impose its interpretation of this reality, and then convince the world that what it imposed is the right itself, we will have moved from a world governed by rules to a world governed by the ability to impose rules. This is where the real danger will appear.

Therefore, the importance of the King's speech does not lie merely in the fact that it addressed an event affecting Jordan and its neighborhood, but rather in that it placed before the international community a broader question: What can happen when facts imposed by force ("truth-reality") become stronger than the rules that are supposed to govern the world ("right")?

Power is a necessity to protect states, but it should not become a source of legitimacy. Power may impose a new reality, and it may prolong its life, but it alone cannot grant it a certificate of legitimacy. Reality is something, fact is something, and right is something else entirely.

In a world where the capacity of the strong to manufacture facts is expanding, the most important battle remains: ensuring that the facts created by power do not turn into reality, and reality into a right that the world is asked to believe in.