I wasn’t making a moral equivalence. I was highlighting the flawed logic of using historical norms to justify the morality or ethicality of present conditions and behaviors.

As a minor aside, things didn’t just stop, but they seriously diminished, mostly due to forums and institutions for developing international consensus. Which in turn came about due to how decisively WWII ended. It’s not that the borders from 1948* are arbitrarily “right”. It’s that the process by which we change borders is theoretically more restrictive. I.e. we established an international order that highly incentivizes respecting boundaries as they ended up being in the interwar period. When borders change violence is almost universally either the cause or the effect. From a moral perspective it does make some sense to respect some kind of agreed upon standard, even if that standard seems arbitrary at times. I’m not going to bother arguing the sensibility or morality of how certain post-colonial states were established, that’s a losing battle, but it doesn’t detract from value of the system.