U.S. rejects Netanyahu's claims: "Golan Heights are not part of Israel"

[ati87]

Telling Israel to give back Golan is like telling China to give back Tibet. Different people are living there now.

That is totally irrelevant and it goes against everything we learned after WW1+2....

The fact that people have been ignoring the lessons of these massive wars when it comes to certain countries (countries that are part of the Security Council + Israel ) is the very reason why their is still conflict in the middle east and in allot of other regions.

In a perfect world where countries have learned the lessons of WW1+2 Russia would have never been allowed to annex Crimea, the same goes for Israel annexing Palestinian lands.

It breeds constant conflict because the countries generally don't like giving up territory no mater if it's a barren rock or not.

[May90]

It is not a stretch, it is a text book illegal situation under international law.

The thing is, most people do not give a shit if Israel holds the Golan heights, as long as they hold it for military reasons and do not try and build settlements on it and/or claim it as Israeli territory.

Nobody was really paying any attention to the Golan Heights, Syria has more pressing issues at the moment, so instead of keeping his gob shut, Netanyahu puts the West in a position where they have to condemn Israeli actions. He is a liability.

It is not an international crime though, it is a grey area of international law. Lands captured during unsanctioned wars have a complicated legal status. Especially since the Heights were captured back when international law was still forming and such acts weren't a rarity. Indeed, like The-Shan mentioned, it is like Tibet in China: if China annexed Tibet nowadays, the reaction of the international community would be strongly negative - but since it was done long ago, nowadays it is hard to call them criminals for keeping the land they've been owning for many decades.

Why Netanyahu brought this up now, I don't know. But I have my guesses. Obama's administration has been focusing on improving relations with the Muslim world (and failing at that), so Israel naturally is neglected. Netanyahu might be probing the ground to see how much support Israel has on the West. If it turns out that support is too small and they have to rely only on themselves, then they might get to more decisive and desperate measures to maintain their status quo.

[Kalis]

It is not an international crime though, it is a grey area of international law. Lands captured during unsanctioned wars have a complicated legal status. Especially since the Heights were captured back when international law was still forming and such acts weren't a rarity. Indeed, like The-Shan mentioned, it is like Tibet in China: if China annexed Tibet nowadays, the reaction of the international community would be strongly negative - but since it was done long ago, nowadays it is hard to call them criminals for keeping the land they've been owning for many decades.

Why Netanyahu brought this up now, I don't know. But I have my guesses. Obama's administration has been focusing on improving relations with the Muslim world (and failing at that), so Israel naturally is neglected. Netanyahu might be probing the ground to see how much support Israel has on the West. If it turns out that support is too small and they have to rely only on themselves, then they might get to more decisive and desperate measures to maintain their status quo.

The relevant law is in the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949.

UN resolution 497 from 1981 is pretty clear. And before anyone states that it is only the UN, Israel exists because the UN created it.

If Israel is disputing the laws of the organisation that say Israel has the right to exist, then Israel is disputing its own legitimacy. There are nations that do not recognise the right of existence of Israel, Israel being one themselves is not a sensible position to take.

Israel should accept the Golan Heights are not theirs, but just never give them back, keep fudging it and saying the time is not right - that solves the security problem for Israel and does not put the US, or any of the other Israeli allies, into the uncomfortable position of having to denounce Israeli statements of ownership.

[May90]

The relevant law is in the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949.

UN resolution 497 from 1981 is pretty clear. And before anyone states that it is only the UN, Israel exists because the UN created it.

If Israel is disputing the laws of the organisation that say Israel has the right to exist, then Israel is disputing its own legitimacy. There are nations that do not recognise the right of existence of Israel, Israel being one themselves is not a sensible position to take.

Israel should accept the Golan Heights are not theirs, but just never give them back, keep fudging it and saying the time is not right - that solves the security problem for Israel and does not put the US, or any of the other Israeli allies, into the uncomfortable position of having to denounce Israeli statements of ownership.

Well, strictly from the legal point of view, I suppose you are right. That said, international law is pretty flexible in its interpretation, which depends a lot on the opinion of member states. Even if technically Israel keeping Golan Heights is illegal, in practice the UN might overlook it under certain circumstances. Perhaps what Netanyahu is trying to do is to make the UN and its closest allies make it clear as to what their position on that is. So far, everyone has been avoiding discussing this subject, but it has to be discussed, so it doesn't suddenly come up in the most inconvenient moment as a means of pressure against Israel.

[Deleted]

That's what I love about Barrack Obama and his administration. That he showed a middle finger to Israel. He should be remembered for it. Besides US doesn't have any benefit for supporting Kike-state anymore.

[Infracted]

[Dreknar20]

Are you really suggesting that we should legitimise land grabs?

why not?
Land never 'rightfully' belongs to anyone.

- - - Updated - - -

In a perfect world where countries have learned the lessons of WW1+2

so the lessons from those wars is to engage in war before a different war?

[jimboa24]

Whoever is recognised as the successor of Syria will have the rightful claim on the land.

Wait, what? I'm a little fuzzy on my international law. It used to be that territory conquered in war was claimed and won by the victors of that war. That's apparently "illegal" now, even though it's been the general rule of war for thousands of years. Of course in this century, most countries that conquered other countries didn't always claim them (unless their name is the U.S.S.R.), but the general attitude was, to the victor goes the spoils.

To put it very simply, Israel was attacked in several attempts to obliterate Israel by neighboring Muslim countries. They not only repelled these attacks, but took land in retribution for those attacks. Why are they expected to just give that land back again?

[Theodarzna]

Wait, what? I'm a little fuzzy on my international law. It used to be that territory conquered in war was claimed and won by the victors of that war. That's apparently "illegal" now, even though it's been the general rule of war for thousands of years. Of course in this century, most countries that conquered other countries didn't always claim them (unless their name is the U.S.S.R.), but the general attitude was, to the victor goes the spoils.

To put it very simply, Israel was attacked in several attempts to obliterate Israel by neighboring Muslim countries. They not only repelled these attacks, but took land in retribution for those attacks. Why are they expected to just give that land back again?

International law is largely a joke.

More over since its limited by timescale "Every land grab after today is wrong!" Is heavily convenient for the USA and the UK whose territorial conquest lay clouded in history now.

[Mavett]

It is not an international crime though, it is a grey area of international law. Lands captured during unsanctioned wars have a complicated legal status. Especially since the Heights were captured back when international law was still forming and such acts weren't a rarity. Indeed, like The-Shan mentioned, it is like Tibet in China: if China annexed Tibet nowadays, the reaction of the international community would be strongly negative - but since it was done long ago, nowadays it is hard to call them criminals for keeping the land they've been owning for many decades.

Why Netanyahu brought this up now, I don't know. But I have my guesses. Obama's administration has been focusing on improving relations with the Muslim world (and failing at that), so Israel naturally is neglected. Netanyahu might be probing the ground to see how much support Israel has on the West. If it turns out that support is too small and they have to rely only on themselves, then they might get to more decisive and desperate measures to maintain their status quo.

Well rumors are that both Obama and Putin were or still are working on a "Peace deal" in Syria and one of the major points involves Israel returning the Golan heights Syria or whatever is left from it (The government has little to no control in the area).

The entire thing would go down according to a pre written script: "All parties in Syria have agreed to bla bla bla" and the only major obstacle to achieving a stop to bloodshed in Syria is the stubborn Israelis and their refusal to give back the Golan heights to a very unstable regime and dozens of militias.

It was done to stop the entire plan from its inception.

[Holas]

That is totally irrelevant and it goes against everything we learned after WW1+2....

The fact that people have been ignoring the lessons of these massive wars when it comes to certain countries (countries that are part of the Security Council + Israel ) is the very reason why their is still conflict in the middle east and in allot of other regions.

In a perfect world where countries have learned the lessons of WW1+2 Russia would have never been allowed to annex Crimea, the same goes for Israel annexing Palestinian lands.

It breeds constant conflict because the countries generally don't like giving up territory no mater if it's a barren rock or not.

Actually its exactly the opposite. The lesson should be that if you are aggressive and try to wipe out someone else, there is a downside (land lose). You will lose something like Germany lost after WW2. YOUR suggestion is that you can try your luck killing someone else and worst case scenario, things will be like they were before.

Unlike other land grabs like all the illegal expansions and crimes of the UK (tell me more how falkland island which are 12,000 km away from UK NOT against "international laws") and USA and pretty much almost ALL the countries in the world, Israel's land grab was a direct result of hostility against it.

[Kalis]

Wait, what? I'm a little fuzzy on my international law. It used to be that territory conquered in war was claimed and won by the victors of that war. That's apparently "illegal" now, even though it's been the general rule of war for thousands of years. Of course in this century, most countries that conquered other countries didn't always claim them (unless their name is the U.S.S.R.), but the general attitude was, to the victor goes the spoils.

To put it very simply, Israel was attacked in several attempts to obliterate Israel by neighboring Muslim countries. They not only repelled these attacks, but took land in retribution for those attacks. Why are they expected to just give that land back again?

Have you heard of the Geneva Convention? That is why they are expected to give the land back.

We tried to get over that whole notion of "To the victor goes the spoils", because it led to constant warfare. You have missed out over 65 years of what the international community has been trying to achieve.

As I mentioned above, Israel exists because international law brought it into existence, disputing international law when it is the very thing that give a nation legitimacy is disputing their own legitimacy and that is not a sensible position to take.

Unlike other land grabs like all the illegal expansions and crimes of the UK (tell me more how falkland island which are 12,000 km away from UK NOT against "international laws") and USA and pretty much almost ALL the countries in the world, Israel's land grab was a direct result of hostility against it.

Could you explain who the Falkland Islands is a land grab from?

Argentina? Argentina did not exist at the time that Britain claimed it, so not Argentina.

Spain? It is hardly any closer to Spain than it is to the UK and the Spanish claim is based on what the Pope said, Britain does not recognise the authority of the Pope.

The Falkland Island natives? That would be penguins and they do not get a say.

[Holas]

Could you explain who the Falkland Islands is a land grab from?

Argentina? Argentina did not exist at the time that Britain claimed it, so not Argentina.

Spain? It is hardly any closer to Spain than it is to the UK and the Spanish claim is based on what the Pope said, Britain does not recognise the authority of the Pope.

The Falkland Island natives? That would be penguins and they do not get a say.

Your double standards is astonishing. Thank you for showing it.

So occupying a land 12,000 km from home from a state (Argentina) which declared independence on 1816 and England attacked on 1832 does NOT count a "occupying" na its "land grab from penguins and they do not have a say". Yup you are the average british hypocrite.

Wait, does that mean you support Israel occupying west bank? because unlike the war criminal UK that attacked a state (if only that was the only one), palestine was never a state. Jordan was there in 1967 and they didn't want the land back so it has a MUCH stronger case of "no man land".

- - - Updated - - -

The relevant law is in the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949.

UN resolution 497 from 1981 is pretty clear. And before anyone states that it is only the UN, Israel exists because the UN created it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1701 also pretty clear. Hezbollah supposed to disarm him self, NOT accumulate missile arsenal almost largest in the world. But who cares about them, the most important thing is tie Israel's hands, not its terrorist organization enemies...

Israel has learned more than once. They can ONLY count on themselves. NO one will be there for them, not even the US. While good international relations are important, our own survival is even more important so when it comes to our security, we tell the world - please, go fuck yourself.

[caervek]

Your double standards is astonishing. Thank you for showing it.

He's not showing a double standard, he's showing common sense

So occupying a land 12,000 km from home from a state (Argentina) which declared independence on 1816 and England attacked on 1832 does NOT count a "occupying"

Actually it would if that were true, however as Argentina didn't exist back when the Falklands were colonized, they had never been inhabited by humans before then, they don't even belong to the UK and haven't for a long time and their people wish to be affiliated with the UK (as per UN rules on self determination), then no it doesn't count as occupying :P

Yup you are the average british hypocrite.

As the two situations are noting alike there is nothing hypocritical about it

[Kalis]

Your double standards is astonishing. Thank you for showing it.

So occupying a land 12,000 km from home from a state (Argentina) which declared independence on 1816 and England attacked on 1832 does NOT count a "occupying" na its "land grab from penguins and they do not have a say". Yup you are the average british hypocrite.

Britain's claim to the Falkland Islands is from before 1816, so how is Britain attacking Argentina in 1832 relevant at all? You have lost me there.

The Argentinian claim comes directly from the Spanish claim, but Spain is also a long way away from the Falkland Islands. The hypocrisy would be claiming that the British claim is invalid because Britain is a long way from the Falkland Islands, whilst accepting the Spanish claim, in spite of them being a long way away as well.

Wait, does that mean you support Israel occupying west bank? because unlike the war criminal UK that attacked a state (if only that was the only one), palestine was never a state. Jordan was there in 1967 and they didn't want the land back so it has a MUCH stronger case of "no man land".

It was not "No man's land" though, people lived there, which is not the case with the Falkland Islands, which was uninhabited. Do you not recognise Palestinians as humans or something?

- - - Updated - - -

please, go fuck yourself.

Not sure I am flexible enough, but enjoy your ban.

[Mavett]

Britain's claim to the Falkland Islands is from before 1816, so how is Britain attacking Argentina in 1832 relevant at all? You have lost me there.

The Argentinian claim comes directly from the Spanish claim, but Spain is also a long way away from the Falkland Islands. The hypocrisy would be claiming that the British claim is invalid because Britain is a long way from the Falkland Islands, whilst accepting the Spanish claim, in spite of them being a long way away as well.



It was not "No man's land" though, people lived there, which is not the case with the Falkland Islands, which was uninhabited. Do you not recognise Palestinians as humans or something?

- - - Updated - - -



Not sure I am flexible enough, but enjoy your ban.

Well to be fair, the last bit wasn't directed at you personally.

[Kalis]

Well to be fair, the last bit wasn't directed at you personally.

That is true, but rabid nationalists like that poster have a habit of getting banned on here so it is only a matter of time.

[Macaquerie]

Israel has learned more than once. They can ONLY count on themselves. NO one will be there for them, not even the US. While good international relations are important, our own survival is even more important so when it comes to our security, we tell the world - please, go fuck yourself.

You may have been drinking too much of the government propaganda Kool-Aid. The US has always been there to support Israel, even when it was unpopular and even when it directly goes against our own interests, so you can maybe cool it with the "Israel has no friends and everyone is an antisemite" talk. Arguably, there has never been another country that the US has had more of a vested interest in seeing flourish and prosper than Israel, and perhaps all those decades of unconditional support have given Israelis a severe case of special snowflake syndrome. Israel won't truly become a successful project until it stops being a country that causes people headaches and starts being a country that solves problems. They certainly have the military, economic, and intellectual capability to do it.

[Holas]

It was not "No man's land" though, people lived there, which is not the case with the Falkland Islands, which was uninhabited. Do you not recognise Palestinians as humans or something?

- - - Updated - - -

"No man's land" from the meaning of land that no state claimed ownership.

The Argentinian claim comes directly from the Spanish claim, but Spain is also a long way away from the Falkland Islands. The hypocrisy would be claiming that the British claim is invalid because Britain is a long way from the Falkland Islands, whilst accepting the Spanish claim, in spite of them being a long way away as well.

So using your logic, if Spain would be occupying New York (lets say they colonized it before britain) it would make perfect sense to keep occupying it today. I could half understand you if a new english state would emerge in those islands (still would be wrong with the small size and proximity to argentina) but at least would make half sense. keeping land so far away is just UK inability to pass on its colonization criminal record. Then again I bet also Gibraltar occupation seems logical to you so who am I kidding.

You say the people of Falkland island wanted to be UK citizens? then how the fuck that occupation is ok while Russia anexiation of crimea is not ok where not only the people there wanted the Russian, not only it borders with Russia, it also belonged to Russia federation way before before Ukrain even got independence?

As the two situations are noting alike there is nothing hypocritical about it

I agree but I would argue that britain's occupation is much much worse...It is also quite surprising that you also support britain occupation and happens to be british as well (no its not).

It seems that both your logic consist of 2 different rule books, one for the UK and one for the rest of the world. This is more or less the definition of double standards/hypocrite.

Not sure I am flexible enough, but enjoy your ban.

Taking sentences out of context is fun isn't it? At least you admit it in your next post. Next time please read the entire section or don't bother reading at all.

[caervek]

So using your logic, if Spain would be occupying New York (lets say they colonized it before britain) it would make perfect sense to keep occupying it today.

Nobody is using that logic. You are they one who brought the Falkland isles into this discussion despite them having nothing in common with the Golan Heights.

keeping land so far away is just UK inability to pass on its colonization criminal record.

/Sigh, the UK does not own the Falklands, they belong to the Falklanders, they are self governing, the UK is only responsible for their defense as a protectorate of the UK. If they wanted to end their association with the UK they could.

Also, you do understand that while Argentina is the closest country to them, it's not exactly close either, are you saying that China should own Taiwan because it's even closer? Or that South Korea should own Japan?

You say the people of Falkland island wanted to be UK citizens?

I'm pretty sure that was demonstrated in 2013 when 99.8% of them voted to remain associated with the UK >.>

then how the **** that occupation is ok while Russia anexiation of crimea is not ok where not

Well (I for one am in favour of the Crimeans exercising their right to self determination) the general difference is that Crimea was part of Ukraine, not an uninhabited/unclaimed island in the middle of nowhere.

I agree but I would argue that britain's occupation is much much worse

So you think that discovering an uninhabited island and claiming it, then later giving it independence is much much worse than militarily conquering an area, displacing it's population and building settlements to move your own people in?

It seems that both your logic consist of 2 different rule books, one for the UK and one for the rest of the world.

No we just understand the history of the Falkland isles

[Holas]

You may have been drinking too much of the government propaganda Kool-Aid. The US has always been there to support Israel, even when it was unpopular and even when it directly goes against our own interests, so you can maybe cool it with the "Israel has no friends and everyone is an antisemite" talk. Arguably, there has never been another country that the US has had more of a vested interest in seeing flourish and prosper than Israel, and perhaps all those decades of unconditional support have given Israelis a severe case of special snowflake syndrome. Israel won't truly become a successful project until it stops being a country that causes people headaches and starts being a country that solves problems. They certainly have the military, economic, and intellectual capability to do it.

There is no doubt that the US is Israel's greatest friend. Even if no one helps, it doesn't mean all are "antisemites" - only if all try to destroy Israel -that statement (which I never said) might hold true. US aid till 1971 summed to 3b $, ~100m $ military aid not huge. The total aid Israel got till today is less than half of what greece loaned only recently. Again we are grateful, but lets not make it "US keeps Israel financially" (which you never said, I know) - their support on UN council is probably more valueble. If Israel would lose its independence war in 48 -Israel would not exist. The US did not really help or defend Israel, the drafted of all woman, elderly and children did the job as we were fighting for our lives. US interests are fairly clear - the only democracy in the middle east rings a bell? Israel is acting by the US interests otherwise the stuff we invent (and Israel is quite good at that) would go not only to its allies in the west but also to Russia and China who Israel does not see as enemies and could benefit a lot from closer trades but the US veto that.

Jews alive indeed cause some people headaches, but they will just need to get used to that.

If Israel would be attacked again - US will not defend Israel like they never did in the past. They might send ammunition (and we are thankful for that) but that is it. Actually the russians are much more actively defending their allies than US Israel. The only time the US "might" intervene is if Israel is going to lose (and then its pretty much genocide of jews in Israel) and even then they will probably intervene from the wrong reasons because then Israel would use nukes and US will try to prevent that.