Pres.Trump recognises Israeli annexation of Golan Heights

Is the decision to recognise annexation of Golan Heights right?

  • It is absolutely right

    Votes: 22 43.1%
  • At least it is a logical decision

    Votes: 4 7.8%
  • It is a premature step

    Votes: 1 2.0%
  • It will not change anything

    Votes: 2 3.9%
  • It is a doubtful action

    Votes: 2 3.9%
  • It is a wrong decision

    Votes: 6 11.8%
  • Criminal step made by Zionist puppet

    Votes: 6 11.8%
  • Don't know/Don't care

    Votes: 8 15.7%

  • Total voters
    51
#21
It's funny. You explain my point of view while don't explain your own one.
I believe that a referendum in Golan Hights is needed where local population (excluding Jewish settlers) could express its will. Do you agree with it?
I didn't give my opinion. I merely pointed out your hypocrisy.

And I presume you'd be in favour of a referendum in the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine in which the local population (excluding Russian settlers) could express its will. While we're at it, let's do Köningsburg (aka Kaliningrad), in which only the remnants of the local German population can vote (excluding Russian settlers). And that's just for starters on territory annexed by Russia in living memory.
 
#22
Possession is 9/10 of the law. The rest of the world will follow along and get on the same page.
But still no one World leader followed the example shown by mr.Trump. Why do you think?
 

DaManBugs

LE
Book Reviewer
#23
Possession is 9/10 of the law. The rest of the world will follow along and get on the same page.
I see. You mean like the rest of the world did on the Iran Nuclear Agreement, I take it.

If "the world" has learned one thing, it's not to take your man Trump seriously.

MsG
 
#24
What real difference does it make if the Ärsewipe-in-Chief Trump "recognises" the Israeli annexation? It doesn't make it any more legal does it? Of course, "Bibi" is thrilled, like: "I got the big boy to agree with me". It's another tiresome example of the kindergarten politics we know so well.

MsG
And that is another example of your kindergarten posts.
BTW I think Trump is the best POTUS we have had since Nixon.
 
#26
I didn't give my opinion. I merely pointed out your hypocrisy.

And I presume you'd be in favour of a referendum in the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine in which the local population (excluding Russian settlers) could express its will. While we're at it, let's do Köningsburg (aka Kaliningrad), in which only the remnants of the local German population can vote (excluding Russian settlers). And that's just for starters on territory annexed by Russia in living memory.
Köningsburg?
Probably you mean Köningsberg.
Königsberg - Wikipedia
Haut-Köningsburg is a castle in Alsace. Btw, I have been here.

There are international agreements (including Helsinki final act) that closed any territorial disputes in Europe including Alsace and former parts of Germany in Poland and Russia.
 
Last edited:
#27
But still no one World leader followed the example shown by mr.Trump. Why do you think?
Trump is the “Hold my beer” President. His thought process is more in line with the common man, instead of international norms. Israel was never going to give up the Golan after they fought for it. Trump knew this and he decided to recognize that fact, and win points at home. I mean the whole concept of “Peace in the Middle East”, is more or less a fairy tale.
 
#28
Possession is 9/10 of the law. The rest of the world will follow along and get on the same page.
Not this internationally-recognized law-based agreement to which the USA was a signatory?

Resolution 497 (1981) of 17 December 1981
The Security Council,

Having considered the letter of 14 December 1981 from the Permanent Representative of the Syrian Arab Republic
contained in document S/14791,
Reaffirming that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible, in accordance with the Charter of the
United Nations, the principles of international law and relevant Security Council resolutions,
1. Decides that the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and… [read more] administration in the occupied Syrian
Golan Heights is null and void and without international legal effect;
2. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, should rescind forthwith its decision;
3. Determines that all the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in
Time of War, of 12 August 1949," continue to apply to the Syrian territory occupied by Israel since June 1967;
4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the implementation of the present
resolution within two weeks and decides that, in the event of non-compliance by Israel, the Council would meet
urgently, and not later than 5 January 1982, to consider taking appropriate measures in accordance with the
Charter of the United Nations.

Adopted unanimously at the 2319th meeting. [^]


Security Council Resolution 497 - UNSCR
 
#29
And that is another example of your kindergarten posts.
BTW I think Trump is the best POTUS we have had since Nixon.
Ignore him. He's been hating on Israel ever since it turned away from the USSR
Köningsburg?
Probably you mean Köningsberg.
Königsberg - Wikipedia
Haut-Köningsburg is a castle in Alsace. Btw, I have been here.
There are international agreements (including Helsinki final act) that closed any territorial disputes including Alsace and former parts of Germany in Poland and Russia.
Excuse my spelling error. Königsburg. The one ethnically-cleansed and annexed by the Russians at the end of WW2. This one: Kaliningrad - Wikipedia

As you jolly well know. But nice try at a deflection.
 
#30
Not this internationally-recognized law-based agreement to which the USA was a signatory?

Resolution 497 (1981) of 17 December 1981
The Security Council,


Having considered the letter of 14 December 1981 from the Permanent Representative of the Syrian Arab Republic
contained in document S/14791,
Reaffirming that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible, in accordance with the Charter of the
United Nations, the principles of international law and relevant Security Council resolutions,
1. Decides that the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and… [read more] administration in the occupied Syrian
Golan Heights is null and void and without international legal effect;
2. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, should rescind forthwith its decision;
3. Determines that all the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in
Time of War, of 12 August 1949," continue to apply to the Syrian territory occupied by Israel since June 1967;
4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the implementation of the present
resolution within two weeks and decides that, in the event of non-compliance by Israel, the Council would meet
urgently, and not later than 5 January 1982, to consider taking appropriate measures in accordance with the
Charter of the United Nations.


Adopted unanimously at the 2319th meeting. [^]

Security Council Resolution 497 - UNSCR
Yet the Golan still belongs to Israel, and nobody here expects them to give it back. Life still goes on, and in the end nobody cares.
 
#31
Not this internationally-recognized law-based agreement to which the USA was a signatory?

Resolution 497 (1981) of 17 December 1981
The Security Council,


Having considered the letter of 14 December 1981 from the Permanent Representative of the Syrian Arab Republic
contained in document S/14791,
Reaffirming that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible, in accordance with the Charter of the
United Nations, the principles of international law and relevant Security Council resolutions,
1. Decides that the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and… [read more] administration in the occupied Syrian
Golan Heights is null and void and without international legal effect;
2. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, should rescind forthwith its decision;
3. Determines that all the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in
Time of War, of 12 August 1949," continue to apply to the Syrian territory occupied by Israel since June 1967;
4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the implementation of the present
resolution within two weeks and decides that, in the event of non-compliance by Israel, the Council would meet
urgently, and not later than 5 January 1982, to consider taking appropriate measures in accordance with the
Charter of the United Nations.


Adopted unanimously at the 2319th meeting. [^]

Security Council Resolution 497 - UNSCR
Is this the same UNSC which 10 months later decided the UK should talk to Argentina over the Falklands sovereignty?
 
#33
Ignore him. He's been hating on Israel ever since it turned away from the USSR


Excuse my spelling error. Königsburg. The one ethnically-cleansed and annexed by the Russians at the end of WW2. This one: Kaliningrad - Wikipedia

As you jolly well know. But nice try at a deflection.
Indeed, some lands that belonged to Germany were given to Poland and relatively small part to the Soviet union. Germany agreed with it.
Do you suggest that Israel used this precedent to annex Golan Heights?
 
#35
Indeed, some lands that belonged to Germany were given to Poland and relatively small part to the Soviet union. Germany agreed with it.
Do you suggest that Israel used this precedent to annex Golan Heights?
"Given". "Germany agreed".

Big fat LOL.

Just like areas of Poland were "given" to the USSR (and areas of Germany to Poland) in the same timeframe.

I know you love these games of mind-blowing sophistry, but they just make you look a stinking hypocrite.
 
#36
Either the annexation of Crimea and Golan Heights by force was wrong in both cases, or it was OK in both cases. Either that or "right" and "wrong" are simply synonyms for things that are in or not in our interests.

Hypocrisy on the issue of annexation plays directly into the Kremlin's hands. Their de facto position has been that international law and principle have been shams and fig leaves for Western powers who interpret it hypocritically in their own interests and that therefore any other sovereign nation has the right to do the same.

Shortly after the end of WWII a line was drawn through history by the victorious powers who founded the UN and declared that wars of conquest and national interest were to cease and that in the new world order borders were to be respected and relations between countries were to be conducted peacefully. This idea of a peaceful world order is not advanced by the annexation of either Golan Heights or Crimea.

Some amongst the current great powers may relish the idea of the removal of fetters which restrained them from doing whatever they wished to the weaker countries of the world. However, the weaker countries of the world will not welcome this and they will be less inclined to accept the leadership of those who threaten the principle of sovereignty by doing so, nor will they have much sympathy for them when fortunes go against those powers. Neither will it be welcomed by those who have the foresight to see that new powers are rising in the world who will not restrain themselves in future if international principles are undermined at this stage.

Either the annexation of both Crimea and Golan Heights are OK, or neither are OK. To waffle about the issue or to come up with "yes but" excuses about how the two are different is to be exposed for all the world to see as being a lying hypocrite.

And for those who think that the preceding refers to @KGB_resident , he has pursued the consistent principle of supporting that which he sees as being in Russia's interests and opposing that which he sees as being against them. Those who condemn him for this while pursuing the same for their own country while claiming to be motivated by abstract notions of justice are the ones who are hypocrites.
 
#37
Shortly after the end of WWII a line was drawn through history by the victorious powers who founded the UN and declared that wars of conquest and national interest were to cease and that in the new world order borders were to be respected and relations between countries were to be conducted peacefully. This idea of a peaceful world order is not advanced by the annexation of either Golan Heights or Crimea.
Basically a wonderful idea that was always going to fall at the first hurdle.
The Congress of Vienna 1814/15 was also supposed to do the same thing.
Humans are humans, good, bad and indifferent. And that is just one of them.
 
#38
I see. You mean like the rest of the world did on the Iran Nuclear Agreement, I take it.

If "the world" has learned one thing, it's not to take your man Trump seriously.

MsG
Hang on, you can't tell a Russian not to take his man Trump seri...


Oh.


Right.


Carry on.
 
#39
Basically a wonderful idea that was always going to fall at the first hurdle.
The Congress of Vienna 1814/15 was also supposed to do the same thing.
Humans are humans, good, bad and indifferent. And that is just one of them.
And this of course is why both Israel and Russia will get away with it, provided they are patient enough.

In the long run, global power will shift to eastern and southern Asia while Europe and the US will find themselves relegated to the second and third tiers. People today might want to think about what sort of world they want to have in future when their own country is going to be on the receiving end of things.
 
#40
Either the annexation of Crimea and Golan Heights by force was wrong in both cases, or it was OK in both cases. Either that or "right" and "wrong" are simply synonyms for things that are in or not in our interests.

Hypocrisy on the issue of annexation plays directly into the Kremlin's hands. Their de facto position has been that international law and principle have been shams and fig leaves for Western powers who interpret it hypocritically in their own interests and that therefore any other sovereign nation has the right to do the same.

Shortly after the end of WWII a line was drawn through history by the victorious powers who founded the UN and declared that wars of conquest and national interest were to cease and that in the new world order borders were to be respected and relations between countries were to be conducted peacefully. This idea of a peaceful world order is not advanced by the annexation of either Golan Heights or Crimea.

Some amongst the current great powers may relish the idea of the removal of fetters which restrained them from doing whatever they wished to the weaker countries of the world. However, the weaker countries of the world will not welcome this and they will be less inclined to accept the leadership of those who threaten the principle of sovereignty by doing so, nor will they have much sympathy for them when fortunes go against those powers. Neither will it be welcomed by those who have the foresight to see that new powers are rising in the world who will not restrain themselves in future if international principles are undermined at this stage.

Either the annexation of both Crimea and Golan Heights are OK, or neither are OK. To waffle about the issue or to come up with "yes but" excuses about how the two are different is to be exposed for all the world to see as being a lying hypocrite.

And for those who think that the preceding refers to @KGB_resident , he has pursued the consistent principle of supporting that which he sees as being in Russia's interests and opposing that which he sees as being against them. Those who condemn him for this while pursuing the same for their own country while claiming to be motivated by abstract notions of justice are the ones who are hypocrites.
I don't deny that I'm biased in respect to Russia's national interests.
I also understand and recognise pro-Israeli, pro-US, pro-Western bias and of course pro-British one.
It is hard to find absolutely unbiased person.
As for Crimea then pres.Putin could recognise independent Crimean republic with almost the same effect as the West recognised Kosovo. The difference with current situation would be minimal while from diplomatical, legal points of view Moscow would be in much better position. At time I thought that Crimea would join to unrecognised republics of S.Ossetia and Abkhazia. I reckon that mr.Putin decided to be honest - Crimea is a part of Russia and will be Russian in the future, period. Israeli leaders also decided to be honest. Yes, they could pretend further that they are ready for negotiations while for them the Golan Hights issue was closed long ago.
Ironically, the move made by pres.Trump changes nothing. The next POTUS could revoke the recognition. Hardly any World leader would follow the example. And of course pres.Trump gave a trump card to his Russian collegue.
So on the international stage it is in fact insignificant event but on internal ones ... chances of mr.Netaniahu to win in upcoming elections are boosted. Chances of pres.Trump to be re-elected are boosted as well.
 

Latest Threads

Top