I don't much like outside meddlers, but if soverignty is the ability to decide what occurs inside it's territory, then I'm an enemy of sovereignty. Government shouldn't have the ability to do anything as important as determining what happens, just the ability to enforce a few rules.
Soverignty is the control of ones domain. For you and I, it means that we control ourselves and our domains (personal property). For a nation it means they control what occurs within the boundaries of their nation.
If the Arabs were anarchists and had no government but did have an agreement with the surrounding nations that their territory was a few imaginary lines on topol maps, their determination of "what happens" might just be that no oil drilling occurs within those boundaries.
Or that all of the land within those boundaries is the joint property of all who were citizens. Or some other thing. But no outsider gets to walk in and dictate to them what "rights" he has inside their borders other than his natural rights as a human being. In that case it's not a matter of dictating as his rights originate from choice and already exist. They aren't subject to negotiation.
I suppose that property rights aren't natural. The natural right to property could be more aptly described as territorial rights. Property rights are not something you can find demonstrated in the natural world. We have invented them. Not even amongst "uncivilized" tribal communities do you find the concept strongly represented. Certainly not in the animal kingdom.
You won't find a Lioness that values any personally "owned" object, but you will find that she values territory and will defend that territory. And she will move on to find new territory when the resources are depleted. And the cycle of protecting the new territory begins anew. Personal belongings aren't a hot commodity in nature. Territory is. And it's not the same thing.
When the Natives "sold" Manhattan for a few trinkets, it was not a truly legal transaction as both parties were not in agreement as to the terms of the contract. The natives hadn't the same concept of property ownership. Manhattan was a hunting ground. They believed what was being purchased was the permission to hunt there. Many tribes hunted there. None owned the land.
I happen to believe that property rights, while an invented concept and not at all in agreement with or born of natural rights, are nevertheless imperative for the health of the environment and the freedom of humans.
Our government buys property, and then rents out the mineral rights to companies that have no vested interest in the future value of that land. Thus our government is the holder of the largest and most expensive superfund cleanup sites in the nation.
Walking into some wilderness area and taking the resources without owning the rights to that land is exactly the same. Once the resources are depleted the squatter can leave having done himself no harm but perhaps having left the land uninhabitable.