Trump says time for U.S. to recognize Israeli sovereignty over Golan

Agreed, and there is a huge difference between occupation and annexation.

 

Losing their cases against Trump? Hasn't yet presented evidence, and it is coming big time. Trump considers Hannity a source of news,
and so do his followers.

 

Im surprised Trump hasnt just called for the extermination of all arabs at this point. The racist b@stard.

 

So you are saying you aren't aware of the SDNY losing any cases? I thought you were politically informed.

Does Trump consider Hannity a source of News. Have you heard him say that.

Oh so now all Trump supporters think Hannity is a News Source. Well you are wrong there. But that isn't surprising to Conservatives. Most leftists believe all on the Right worship Trump. Usually say that when they got nothing else to come with.

 

Seems like everyone posting on this site worships the boy, and constantly justifies his conduct.

 

If he did that, he would lose his loyal Muslim following.

 

A couple of comments. While the situation may different say for Kosovo and for Crimea - the question I am posing is strictly in relation to following the UN rules. Do we throw away the rule book.

Just because the UN has been calling out Israel for war crimes - is not a "rejection" of Israel. It is what it is.

There are many nations who have the military capability to annex land from other nations.

That Golan has been under the control of Israel for some time is irrelevant to the question of whether or not we should follow the rules - or throw out the rule book.

 

I preach logic and reason. Demonizing anyone who disagrees with you as " anti American Jew haters" is fallacious nonsense on steroids.

 

Trying to deny the reality of Leftists, Anti Americans, and Jew haters is an exercise in futility and you should already know that.

 

No many on the Right understand Trump has no form but has substance. To bad the leftness and Never Trumpers on the Right don't have the ability to figure that out.

BO the Peep had form and no substance. Another thing they couldn't figure out.

 

Ya... Cause he has oh so many of those.

 

And sure enough lo and behold Dirty Donald interjected himself into the shortly upcoming Israeli election by commenting on the Israeli stake in the Golan giving a boost to Bibi.

 

That rule book does not take into account realpolitik. The strong take from the weak and no rule instituted by a group with out an army truly matters in the real world. It is what it is as you say.

But that does not mean that the UN has no purpose. We need to have a place where countries can meet in a neutral atmosphere dedicated to diplomacy. But country's will go to war and territory will be taken. In modern times the USA is unique in that after large wars we did not take territory nor did we expel the local inhabitants. Not all countries are going to be as benevolent.

 

You are the one who is in denial of reality. Not all leftists are "anti american Jew haters" Most Jews are leftists. Your claim is a fallacious generalization on steroids - a claim which adds nothing to the conversation other than name calling and ad hom fallacy.

Demonizing someone - regardless of political stripe - simply for calling out the Gov't in a way that you disagree with - is what you are doing. This is as "anti American" as it gets.

 

I never said all leftists are anti American jew haters.....I said leftists, Anti Americans, and Jew Haters. That would be 3 types.

Oh and I don't see you telling any of the left this bullshit about demonizing someone. Nor have I in how many years now. So what do you think that says about your uhm principle. Or thought concept to bring me such bullshit. Yeah.....save it for yourself.

Moreover.....with this issue. Looks like they can blame the US and Trump. Plus blame Israel for graciously accepting the recognition.

 

No form but he has substance? How about no form and no substance. True Republicans have most definitely figured this out.

 

Well - there was territory taken from the sovereign nation of Serbia after the war in Yugoslavia. That we did not take it for ourselves is irrelevant to this fact. The local inhabitants of Kosovo were expelled - via persecution.

In the modern world - one does not have to actually take the territory to exert economic hegemony in any case. It is kind of like the vassal state system of old where the nation retained its sovereignty but had to pay taxes and give other concessions to the various bigger powers.

The rule book does take realpolitik into account. It does so on the basis of consensus. That in fact is the rule. While there was certainly not unanimous consensus - nor was there security council consensus - in the case of Kosovo - there was at least a whole lot that agreed with the annexation.

I claimed it was bad precedent at the time - in that there were too many dissenters of significance - and on the basis of the justification put forward. This justification was used by Russia in Crimea - that the majority of people in the region wanted it.

The problem with Golan is that 1) there is almost universal consensus against annexation and 2) the people in the region do not want it.

So then - what are the rules ? There are none .. other than might is right.

I get that you are OK with throwing out the rule book. What I suspect though is that this is simply on the basis that we happen to be a major world power. If you grew up in nation that wasn't a major world power you would likely think differently. I would also guess that if you had lived during a time when major nations were fighting each other over territory - and had fought in those wars - you would think differently.

What you would be thinking is "how can we prevent this from happening again". Time has a way of washing away principles gained via the shedding of blood. Peace has this pacification effect on the brain.

If you have any doubt about this - consider the slogan on which this nation was founded "Give me Liberty or Give me Death"
Consider also Ben Franklin's famous words "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security"

Fast forward a few hundred years and it has become our "Patriotic Duty" to give up essential liberty - to trade essential liberty for security on the basis of a risk of harm that is 400 times less than the risk of harm from "walking".

We have lived through a time of peace. Last time someone attacked the homeland was more than 70 years ago. Since the end of the war we have dominated the world both militarily and economically.

We no longer live in that time. We no longer dominate militarily - not like we did, and we no longer have the unrivaled economic hegemony that we once did. As such - the number of turf wars has increased at a dramatic rate. The number of nations challenging our economic hegemony - something that was unthinkable even 20 years ago - has risen dramatically.

This is dangerous and alarming to any student of cycles in history. I realize that the vast majority of the masses are sitting in armchairs - lulled into some kind of passive mind state and living in some fantasy world of the past .. and as such don't care about the rule book.

It is what it is.

 

1) It is not BS to call you out on your fallacious BS - not if it is a fact - and it is.

2) I do this the same to the left all the time ... Derideo-Te has been howling at me for days in an ad hom demonization rant - because I called him out on the same BS ... would you like the thread and post # ?

You know - as well as I - that what you are doing is fallacious nonsense -so quit trying to defend your irrational behavior and get an argument.

 

The Golan has nothing to do with protecting the Jewish state. It is all about stealing precious water resources.

 

Ever hear of a proxy war ?

The Vietnam War was a USSR vs USA proxy war.

The Syrian civil war that Obama is responsible for starting is a proxy war.
President Trump may have defeated ISIS but Russia probably won that proxy war.

This is a list of proxy wars. Major powers have been highlighted in bold.

A proxy war is a war where two opposing countries support combatants that serve their interests instead of waging war directly. In some cases, only one country is waging war by proxy, while the other is a direct combatant...-> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proxy_wars

Keep arming Israel so we don't have to send American boys to fight Israel's wars or if the Democrats have their way, sending American boys and girls to fight other countries wars.

 

Obama didn't start the Syrian civil war. The Syrians did that, in response to being murdered by Syria's dictator-for-life.

 

Nah, it was ISIS who started the war.

 

The Syrian civil war was a direct result of the Arab Spring that Obama supported.

Obama's agenda was regime change in the Middle East using the Arab Spring.

Egypt
Libya
Syria

The results...the entire Middle East is one big basket case today.

 

I dont really believe in peace between nations. Every alliance and agreement are just temporary arrangements that only stay in force as long as one party does not have an inherent need of something the other has and is unwilling to relinquish. At that moment a government has to evaluate that need vs its ability to acquire it. If it is a life or death situation like water, food, or unrest then that government has to do what ever is needed to acquire it. No peace of paper or agreement will stop that.

When ever there are long periods of peace groups of people start thinking that they are now a part of a civilized people in a civilized time. Then they mistakenly try to apply those beliefs onto others. Even worse then that they try to apply those beliefs onto countries. That is a dangerous fallacy because when that happens there invariably rises some one who will take advantage of those beliefs. We as a nation should not fall for that trap. Come the next large war (it will happen) our soldiers need to be prepared for the very worst that the world can throw at us. Becoming complacent because a majority of countries have agreed to rules will only lead to more needless bloodshed. The only real ability for a country to temporarily avoid war is to be so powerful that it would be suicide to be attacked, be allied with such a country, or not to have anything of value.

But no matter how powerful, who you have allied with, or even your lack of anything of value eventually your country will be challenged. Then you will either survive and grow stronger or parish and a new country will take your place. It is as inevitable as the seasons. No country lasts forever the trick is how long can you last and in what condition your people will be in when you fall. As such a government that does not view the world through those lenses endangers their people and is begging to be destroyed.

 

I wouldn't advocate "throwing away the rule book". The UN, which was founded in the aftermath of World War II, precisely "to end the scourge of war", characterized that global conflagration as requiring the universal rejection of what were termed "wars of aggression" (those aimed at territorial acquisition by conquest). This is a fundamental point and is a norm of international conduct, but it is worth more careful consideration.

All wars feature aggression, but not all wars are aimed at territorial acquisition by conquest, however, military action is often described as a "war of agression" by critics. In World War II, Hitler's campaign was plainly a war of aggression, he deployed military force to conquer other countries, but many wars since then that have been described as wars of aggression clearly were not aimed at conquest.

Israel's occupation of the Golan Heights resulted from its military response to a military attack in 1967 whereby it repelled, defeated and pursued Syrian forces which had invaded Israel from the Golan Heights. The region features an elevated plateau upon which Syrian forces deployed artillery which they successfully used to attack Israel. Once the Israeli military seized this plateau, they retained it to protect their country by not returning the geographically advantageous feature to their defeated aggressor.

It is sensible for Israel to fear that if it returned the Golan Heights, Syria would again install artillery there and bombard Israel, so their reluctance to return the region is understandable. I think they should seek an arrangement that returns the property as long as Syria does not install artillery, but I expect it would be difficult to be adequately assured Syria would comply.