Trump: It is time for the United States to fully recognize Israel's Sovereignty over Golan

[Apocalypse]

Revisionist history? Do you guys like to leave out White europeans just decided to take land and create a country, the most holiest of lands for 3 different religions. Or how they throw the Palestinians (like we did Indians) into modern day "reservations" and not even allow them to be recognized as a country? or how israel murders foreign scientists, and have slaughtered Palestinians with indiscriminate bombing on multiple occasions?

**** Israel, they are just as much assholes and culpable. What other recourse do Palestinians have when they are poor, thrown into modern day reservations, and treated like **** by Israelis? That white people come in and claim "this is our land". Both sides in this has issue, but all the right wing idiots do as usual is play the victim.

The topic of this thread is the Golan Heights being recognized by the US.
Take your propaganda nonsense and demonization elsewhere.

 

[oneworld2]

Call it what you want, after all it is only during the 21st century that anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic individuals have gained a small momentum in what is considered the history revisionist movement.

History itself still maintains and always will that the preemptive attack on Egypt was done in a defensive manner. That Egypt initiated conflict through an act of aggression.
You cannot change that and you're fully aware of that. You've been arguing for history denial for 5 years now and it still hasn't changed.

Debunking Israeli propaganda is what it is called. Crucially the youth of the USA , including the Jewish youth , are waking up to the horror show and are seeking to distance themselves from the gross crimes committed by the state of Israel but largely funded and defended by the US governments.

It;s no more anti German to state that they invaded Poland in 1939 as it is anti Israel to say they attacked Nasser and thus initiated the conflict in 67. They are just the facts of the matter

Look at how many posters here don't believe your regurgitated discredited Israeli propaganda and realize that things are changing. In my small time here the change is palpable and the trend continues

 

[Apocalypse]

Debunking Israeli propaganda is what it is called. Crucially the youth of the USA , including the Jewish youth , are waking up to the horror show and are seeking to distance themselves from the gross crimes committed by the state of Israel but largely funded and defended by the US governments.

It;s no more anti German to state that they invaded Poland in 1939 as it is anti Israel to say they attacked Nasser and thus initiated the conflict in 67. They are just the facts of the matter

Look at how many posters here don't believe your regurgitated discredited Israeli propaganda and realize that things are changing. In my small time here the change is palpable and the trend continues

History is not "Israeli propagnada". It is universal. Your denial of history is a moral crime against all history, not just the part that is in favor of Israel.

Your last sentence is a logical fallacy, argumentum ad populum.
Goes to show the kind of logic you apply when you engage in history denial.

Further read on your logical fallacy:
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

 

[wellwisher]

The Golan Heights is a strategic position for Israel as well as Syria. It borders Syria and acts as a buffer. A pilot test has been run where this land was left open to historical claims. The result of that test was Golan became a strategic position for wide range of radical military harassment coming out of Syria. This pilot test for peace did not work as well as planned.

Now we are about to run a second pilot test. This test allows Israel to have a larger buffer zone. If Israel uses this as a platform for further expansion, or other self serving things, then a third pilot test may appear. The third test may require a compromise. The final choice all depends on which test is most successful in terms of regional security and peace.

 

[Obscurity]

Indeed there's nothing moral in that, then why do you support it?
Why do you subscribe to such immorality?
You reason the Arab acts of aggression against the Jewish state. You claim that the Jewish state acting against it is an aggressor itself trying to rewrite known history.
And this is why your immorality is opposed.

So you agree what Israel did was immoral, and then defend it. Again, Israel attacked. It attacked first. It did not retaliate. It attacked. It took the Golan against international law and acceptable standards of morality. It bulldozed homes, sent Syrians packing, and put up Israeli settlements in a disgusting display of Putinesque expansionism.

This is why your immorality is on full display, along with hypocrisy.

Diplomacy? Israel was attacked. The blockading of the Straits of Tiran is an act of war. Your excuses for aggression and warmongering are quite pathetic.

Blockading a strait is not the same as a military assault. I do enjoy your twisted world view. Again, I call for peace overtures and you claim I embrace aggression and war.

You live in a delusional fantasy.

It's a personal attack regardless of what I support or don't support - which you have no idea of.
These hateful personal attacks that you feel obliged to throw in the end of every other reply are demonstrating your understanding that you're at the wrong end of morality here.

:lamo :lamo :spin:

I discuss the actions not the person. I don't think Obama was anti-Israeli at all in his beliefs but evidently he took acts that caused potential harm to the state of Israel and its citizens, so how did that matter?
The recognition of Jerusalem and now of the Golan Heights are on the other hand turning things in the moral direction.

Recognizing the Golan is a recognition of aggressive war expansion by a country acting with no moral compass and no ethical bounds.

There is no civility in attacking first, expelling indigenous people from sovereign territory.

 

[Evilroddy]

The Golan Heights is a strategic position for Israel as well as Syria. It borders Syria and acts as a buffer. A pilot test has been run where this land was left open to historical claims. The result of that test was Golan became a strategic position for wide range of radical military harassment coming out of Syria. This pilot test for peace did not work as well as planned.

Now we are about to run a second pilot test. This test allows Israel to have a larger buffer zone. If Israel uses this as a platform for further expansion, or other self serving things, then a third pilot test may appear. The third test may require a compromise. The final choice all depends on which test is most successful in terms of regional security and peace.

Wellwisher:

Your second pilot test is illegal under international law. Scientists who do illegal tests are in legal jeopardy and can be both prosectuted and discredited. A better metaphor is needed if you want to make this argument.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[Apocalypse]

So you agree what Israel did was immoral, and then defend it. Again, Israel attacked. It attacked first. It did not retaliate. It attacked. It took the Golan against international law and acceptable standards of morality. It bulldozed homes, sent Syrians packing, and put up Israeli settlements in a disgusting display of Putinesque expansionism.

This is why your immorality is on full display, along with hypocrisy.

It retaliated to an act of aggression, an act of war. Your refusal to recognize an act of war as an act of aggression is a show of support for aggression and warmongering pure and simple.
Israel had every right to use force to end that aggression. Your denial of it is meaningless.

Blockading a strait is not the same as a military assault.

It's an act of war and an act of aggression. Whether you recognize it as such or legitimize such act of aggression is meaningless. You clearly chose to support warmongering and aggression.

You live in a delusional fantasy.

Ah, more personal attacks very refreshing.

Recognizing the Golan is a recognition of aggressive war expansion by a country acting with no moral compass and no ethical bounds.

A recognition of a land taken in a defensive war as a strategic asset so to prevent the aggressors from engaging in more atrocities against Israel's population.

 

[Obscurity]

It retaliated to an act of aggression, an act of war. Your refusal to recognize an act of war as an act of aggression is a show of support for aggression and warmongering pure and simple.
Israel had every right to use force to end that aggression. Your denial of it is meaningless.

This is simply nonsense. You accept Israeli colonialism and expansionism. You then claim I am endorsing aggression. I guess we will need to treat this like your claims of us being anti-Semitic; as hot air, agitprop, and nonsense.

It's an act of war and an act of aggression. Whether you recognize it as such or legitimize such act of aggression is meaningless. You clearly chose to support warmongering and aggression.

Supporting diplomacy is supporting war and aggression?

Ah, more personal attacks very refreshing.

:lamo

A recognition of a land taken in a defensive war as a strategic asset so to prevent the aggressors from engaging in more atrocities against Israel's population.

"Land TAKEN in a DEFENSIVE war". Your sentence makes absolutely no sense.

Like I said, delusions, fantasy, and abject denial of facts and truth.

Your opinion is both dangerous and malinformed nonsense.

 

[Apocalypse]

This is simply nonsense. You accept Israeli colonialism and expansionism. You then claim I am endorsing aggression. I guess we will need to treat this like your claims of us being anti-Semitic; as hot air, agitprop, and nonsense.

No, I accept Israel's defense against expansionism of the Arab aggressors and against its very annihilation. Colonialism by the way doesn't mean what you think it means.

Take note that you do not base anything you say on logical thinking. Simply another blind endorsement of a backwards agenda.

Supporting diplomacy is supporting war and aggression?

You excused an act of war and aggression and looked to legitimize it.
That's a support for war and aggression.

"Land TAKEN in a DEFENSIVE war". Your sentence makes absolutely no sense.

And you're not making any sense in saying so. There's no contradiction between defending yourself and conquering a land from which you are attacked.
Israel offered that land back in exchange for peace immediately and was refused.

Your opinion is both dangerous and malinformed nonsense.

It is the moral position to support the ones defending against attempts of annihilation.
Your agenda is backwards and honestly quite stupid.

 

[Evilroddy]

History is not "Israeli propagnada". It is universal. Your denial of history is a moral crime against all history, not just the part that is in favor of Israel.

Your last sentence is a logical fallacy, argumentum ad populum.
Goes to show the kind of logic you apply when you engage in history denial.

Further read on your logical fallacy:
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

Apocalypse:

History is no more universal than mythos is. Denying your version of history is completely normal if the facts indicate that your version is flawed. But what must be universal are verifiable facts. The facts indicate that Israel launched a surprise air attack against Egypt and thus its treaty partners on June 5th, 1967 and in doing so started the Six-Day War. As Israel was the attacker and thus the aggressor in this war, Israel is prohibited from permanently settling or annexing any territories which it occupied militarily during the Six-Day War. Citing verifiable facts and drawing conclusions based on those facts is good history and is certainly not anti-Semitism.

This sets a very dangerous legal precedent. Now China can use this to claim Tibet or Formosa should it ever militarily retake the break-away Republic of China. Russia can use this decision by the American president to justify its slow motion annexation of northern Georgia and of course Crimea which was taken by force from Ukraine. This decision rewards militarism and aggression and thus is a very bad decision.

In the long-run this decision is also dangerous. If the Assad Regime survives the civil war in Syria it will have a battle-hardened armed forces with which to fight. This recognition of annexation/control may force the Syrian's hands to attempt to militarily retake what Israel claims to now own. If the Syrian Arab Army gets resupplied and refitted by Russia and China it could pose a real threat to regional and global peace. Israel and Syria at war could escalate to draw in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Turkey, Russia and America into a wider conflict. Bad policy on behalf of the US Administration.

Evilroddy.

 

[Apocalypse]

Apocalypse:

History is no more universal than mythos is. Denying your version of history is completely normal if the facts indicate that your version is flawed. But what must be universal are verifiable facts. The facts indicate that Israel launched a surprise air attack against Egypt and thus its treaty partners on June 5th, 1967 and in doing so started the Six-Day War. As Israel was the attacker and thus the aggressor in this war, Israel is prohibited from permanently settling or annexing any territories which it occupied militarily during the Six-Day War. Citing verifiable facts and drawing conclusions based on those facts is good history and is certainly not anti-Semitism.

This sets a very dangerous legal precedent. Now China can use this to claim Tibet or Formosa should it ever retake the break-away republic of China. Russia can use this decision by the American president to justify its slow motion annexation of northern Georgia and of course Crimea which was taken by force from Ukraine. This decision rewards militarism and aggression and thus is a very bad decision.

In the long-run this decision is also dangerous. If the Assad Regime survives the civil war in Syria it will have a battle-hardened armed forces with which to fight. This recognition of annexation/control may force the Syrian's hands to attempt to militarily retake what Israel claims to now own. If the Syrian Arab Army gets resupplied and refitted by Russia and China it could pose a real threat to regional and global peace. Israel and Syria at war could escalate to draw in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Turkey, Russia and America into a wider conflict. Bad policy on behalf of the US Administration.

Evilroddy.

Not "my" version. Your denial is of history itself. You for example refuse to recognize an Egyptian blockading of the straits to be an act of war, you insist that Israel attacked out of aggression when history tells us that Israel attacked preemptively after that act of war that initiated the conflict. That's history denial, not a denial of "my" version but of the universal version.

The taking of the Golan was legitimate considering the Syrians were using it to wage war on Israel. It was offered in return for peace and rejected by the Syrians, most recently during Olmert's administration. There's no actual reasonable argument as to why Israel should just have departed from it when peace was not accepted. After more than 50 years it is time to recognize that Israeli life came to exist there and it is a good thing that it starts now with the US recognition, I'm sure more nations will follow that initiative.

 

[Obscurity]

No, I accept Israel's defense against expansionism of the Arab aggressors and against its very annihilation. Colonialism by the way doesn't mean what you think it means.

I reject Israel's claim, because Israel ACTED first. The straits situation could have been handled morally, with diplomacy. You excuse illicit actions of aggressive war waging.

Take note that you do not base anything you say on logical thinking. Simply another blind endorsement of a backwards agenda.

:lamo

This is the single most absurd agitprop nonsense I've ever read, and I read a lot of fantasy novels.

What's a blind endorsement is ignoring reality, and accepting on blind faith the words of a regime that has acted with hostility and attempts to shut everything down by playing the "anti-Semitic" card at every turn.

You excused an act of war and aggression and looked to legitimize it.
That's a support for war and aggression.

How is supporting diplomatic solutions to these issues "excusing an act of war and aggression and looking to legitimize it" and "supporting" that?

You, sir, are endorsing, embracing, and excusing aggression by Israel, instead of embracing peaceful measures of diplomacy; hence why the un issued resolutions against Israel; because the CHARTER says they should use PEACE, not war, to solve these issues.

There is nothing defense about launching air strikes against someone who hasn't used their military against you.

And you're not making any sense in saying so. There's no contradiction between defending yourself and conquering a land from which you are attacked.
Israel offered that land back in exchange for peace immediately and was refused.

Israel had no right to barter with the land because it has no internationally recognized, legal right over said land.

You literally do not understand anything except agitprop and propaganda from the Israeli slant.

It is the moral position to support the ones defending against attempts of annihilation.
Your agenda is backwards and honestly quite stupid.

It is immoral to support democracy?

My agenda is peace. Yours is clearly the opposite. Tell me how supporting PEACE is backwards and stupid?

 

[Obscurity]

Not "my" version. Your denial is of history itself. You for example refuse to recognize an Egyptian blockading of the straits to be an act of war, you insist that Israel attacked out of aggression when history tells us that Israel attacked preemptively after that act of war that initiated the conflict. That's history denial, not a denial of "my" version but of the universal version.

The taking of the Golan was legitimate considering the Syrians were using it to wage war on Israel. It was offered in return for peace and rejected by the Syrians, most recently during Olmert's administration. There's no actual reasonable argument as to why Israel should just have departed from it when peace was not accepted. After more than 50 years it is time to recognize that Israeli life came to exist there and it is a good thing that it starts now with the US recognition, I'm sure more nations will follow that initiative.

And to china, taking Tibet is legitimate, and to Pakistan taking Kashmir is legitimate, and to Russia taking Crimea is legitimate, because all these sites are bases for unrest in those countries.

By your savage, evil, and ideological barbaric standard, everyone can use anything as justification to seize lands from neighbors, brutally expel indigenous peoples from that land, bulldoze their properties, and put up kushy settlements for their new owners as "legitimate".

And I'm the one who is backwards?

You need a long walk on a dark beach to consider the hypocrisy of your position.

 

[Apocalypse]

And to china, taking Tibet is legitimate, and to Pakistan taking Kashmir is legitimate, and to Russia taking Crimea is legitimate, because all these sites are bases for unrest in those countries.

By your savage, evil, and ideological barbaric standard, everyone can use anything as justification to seize lands from neighbors, brutally expel indigenous peoples from that land, bulldoze their properties, and put up kushy settlements for their new owners as "legitimate".

And I'm the one who is backwards?

You need a long walk on a dark beach to consider the hypocrisy of your position.

You're trying to compare apples with oranges. Your backwards agenda seems very forced.

I believe everyone has the right to defend themselves, you seem to argue otherwise.

 

[Apocalypse]

I reject Israel's claim, because Israel ACTED first. The straits situation could have been handled morally, with diplomacy. You excuse illicit actions of aggressive war waging.



:lamo

This is the single most absurd agitprop nonsense I've ever read, and I read a lot of fantasy novels.

What's a blind endorsement is ignoring reality, and accepting on blind faith the words of a regime that has acted with hostility and attempts to shut everything down by playing the "anti-Semitic" card at every turn.



How is supporting diplomatic solutions to these issues "excusing an act of war and aggression and looking to legitimize it" and "supporting" that?

You, sir, are endorsing, embracing, and excusing aggression by Israel, instead of embracing peaceful measures of diplomacy; hence why the un issued resolutions against Israel; because the CHARTER says they should use PEACE, not war, to solve these issues.

There is nothing defense about launching air strikes against someone who hasn't used their military against you.



Israel had no right to barter with the land because it has no internationally recognized, legal right over said land.

You literally do not understand anything except agitprop and propaganda from the Israeli slant.



It is immoral to support democracy?

My agenda is peace. Yours is clearly the opposite. Tell me how supporting PEACE is backwards and stupid?

Calling your support for aggression and for warmongering a support for peace doesn't change what this 'peace' of yours really means.
Take note of the fact that you're arguing here that an act of war is not an act of aggression and the one defending against it has no right to defend at all.

When a country imposes a naval blockade on another sovereign country that's an act of war.
So Israel did not attack out of aggression, it attacked preemptively in self-defense, which is entirely legitimate, you have no way to claim otherwise.
Finally, that you're unable to recognize that which doesn't present Israel as the perfect evil you wish to paint it as is no concern of mine.

 

[snakestretcher]

Your history revisionism makes you irrelevant.
The widely accepted truth is that Israel was defending itself, you cannot change that.

The territory was used by the Syrian aggressors to attack Israeli towns at Northern Israel.
Today the situation there is even worse with Syria's cooperation with Iranian terrorists for the purpose of harming Israel.
To simply give the territory away when it was taken in a war of survival for Israel against a nation trying to annihilate it completely, is not a sane thing to do and is not a moral thing to do.
It's been Israeli far longer than it's been Syrian now too.

There was however an intention to give the territory back in exchange for a peace deal at the beginning as was done with Egypt, but since that was constantly refused, last time in Ehud Olmert's time as Israeli PM, that's never going to happen.
The US recognition is a good step forward recognizing the Israeli life in the Golan. It shows things are moving in the moral direction, in spite of those calling for Israel's annihilation.
Hopefully more countries will follow soon just as was the case with Jerusalem.

No, your 'widely accepted truth' is a distortion of reality. Israel instigated the Six Day War. Israel continues to be in violation of both International Law and the Geneva Protocols, both of which she swore to abide by. Your precious country is led by thieves, liars and law breakers. In your opinion no doubt fine role models.

 

[Apocalypse]

No, your 'widely accepted truth' is a distortion of reality. Israel instigated the Six Day War. Israel continues to be in violation of both International Law and the Geneva Protocols, both of which she swore to abide by. Your precious country is led by thieves, liars and law breakers.

Too bad history rejects your words completely.
We know from history that Egypt had blockaded the straits of Tiran, amassed troops at the border and kicked out the UN peacekeepers.
We know Nasser talked 24/7 about how he was going to kick all Jews to the sea.
So we know Israel acted preemptively with that happening prior to the attack.

You guys of the history revisionism branch are simply engaging in the empty denial of reality. It's meaningless.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Calling your support for aggression and for warmongering a support for peace doesn't change what this 'peace' of yours really means.
Take note of the fact that you're arguing here that an act of war is not an act of aggression and the one defending against it has no right to defend at all.

When a country imposes a naval blockade on another sovereign country that's an act of war.
So Israel did not attack out of aggression, it attacked preemptively in self-defense, which is entirely legitimate, you have no way to claim otherwise.
Finally, that you're unable to recognize that which doesn't present Israel as the perfect evil you wish to paint it as is no concern of mine.

Did Syria have a naval blockade of Israel? I don’t think so.

The Golan Heights was Syrian territory.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Too bad history rejects your words completely.
We know from history that Egypt had blockaded the straits of Tiran, amassed troops at the border and kicked out the UN peacekeepers.
We know Nasser talked 24/7 about how he was going to kick all Jews to the sea.
So we know Israel acted preemptively with that happening prior to the attack.

You guys of the history revisionism branch are simply engaging in the empty denial of reality. It's meaningless.

And you know what country previously owned the Golan Heights? Syria!

You can’t Use Egypt’s act of aggression to justify taking land away from a country separated from Egypt.

 

[Apocalypse]

And you know what country previously owned the Golan Heights? Syria!

You can’t Use Egypt’s act of aggression to justify taking land away from a country separated from Egypt.

This is so ridiculous.
You're showing how all this anti-Israeli nonsense is strongly based on ignorance.

Syria largely stayed out of the conflict for the first four days.[113][114]

False Egyptian reports of a crushing victory against the Israeli army[73] and forecasts that Egyptian forces would soon be attacking Tel Aviv influenced Syria's decision to enter the war – in a sporadic manner – during this period.[113] Syrian artillery began shelling northern Israel, and twelve Syrian jets attacked Israeli settlements in the Galilee. Israeli fighter jets intercepted the Syrian aircraft, shooting down three and driving off the rest.[115]

Six-Day War - Wikipedia

 

[snakestretcher]

Too bad history rejects your words completely.
We know from history that Egypt had blockaded the straits of Tiran, amassed troops at the border and kicked out the UN peacekeepers.
We know Nasser talked 24/7 about how he was going to kick all Jews to the sea.
So we know Israel acted preemptively with that happening prior to the attack.

You guys of the history revisionism branch are simply engaging in the empty denial of reality. It's meaningless.

I see, so you admit Israel was the aggressor and attacked first ("acted preemptively"). Good, we're making progress. Whatever Nasser talked about was exactly that; talk. Talk is cheap.

 

[Apocalypse]

Did Syria have a naval blockade of Israel? I don’t think so.

The Golan Heights was Syrian territory.

We were discussing the Egyptian start to the Six Days war.
We were not discussing Syrian involvement which began after 5 days with the shelling of Northern Israel using the Golan Heights.
There's no plausible moral and/or logical argument for why Israel had no legitimacy in taking away the Syrian Golan Heights when the territory was used to engage at a war of annihilation against it.
They aren't victims. They started an attempt to annihilate a young sovereign country - and you will agree that this is an awful thing to do to say the least - and failed miserably thankfully.

 

[Apocalypse]

I see, so you admit Israel was the aggressor and attacked first ("acted preemptively"). Good, we're making progress. Whatever Nasser talked about was exactly that; talk. Talk is cheap.

You should educate yourself on what preemptively means.
The only aggressors are those initiating the conflict. That wasn't Israel.

 

[What if...?]

I thought that I had heard about the water aspect regarding the Golan:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...ARAB&usg=AOvVaw0EhRbc8g6i2NGaOkKHUh6_&ampcf=1

So its more about resources than anything else. Maybe oil too.

 

[Obscurity]

You're trying to compare apples with oranges. Your backwards agenda seems very forced.

I believe everyone has the right to defend themselves, you seem to argue otherwise.

You're trying to sell me a watermelon by insisting it's a banana. I'm in the right here. Nowhere have I said Israel has no right to defend itself.