US calls Golan 'Israeli-controlled', drops all mention of West Bank 'occupation'

[NO1]

US calls Golan 'Israeli-controlled,' drops all mention of West Bank 'occupation' | The Times of Israel

For the first time, the Trump administration referred to the Golan Heights on Wednesday as 'Israeli-controlled' and ceased to refer to the West Bank as 'occupied' in the State Department's annual report on human rights around the world.

While last year's report marked a departure from years of American foreign policy by no longer calling the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights 'occupied' in the section title, this year's report went two small steps further.

:applaud:applaud

 

[Evilroddy]

US calls Golan 'Israeli-controlled,' drops all mention of West Bank 'occupation' | The Times of Israel


:applaud:applaud

NO1:

More proof of how detached from reality and mendacious the Trump Administration is in the age of alternative facts.

Why are you applauding willful delusion, even if it benefits your goals and aspirations? Both the Golan Heights and the the Occupied Palestinian Territories were seized militarily in a war initiated by Israel in June 1967 and thus cannot be annexed according to the UN Charter which Israel itself signed onto voluntarily. Both the Golan Heights and the West Bank are still occupied directly by Israeli troops and both are being illegally settled by Israeli settlers in direct contravention to both the Laws of War and International Law.

Applause for delusion, even self-interest driven delusion is pretty pathetic in my humble opinion. But clap away in your make-believe world if you wish.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[OlNate]

NO1:

More proof of how detached from reality and mendacious the Trump Administration is in the age of alternative facts.

Why are you applauding willful delusion, even if it benefits your goals and aspirations? Both the Golan Heights and the the Occupied Palestinian Territories were seized militarily in a war initiated by Israel in June 1967 and thus cannot be annexed according to the UN Charter which Israel itself signed onto voluntarily. Both the Golan Heights and the West Bank are still occupied directly by Israeli troops and both are being illegally settled by Israeli settlers in direct contravention to both the Laws of War and International Law.

Applause for delusion, even self-interest driven delusion is pretty pathetic in my humble opinion. But clap away in your make-believe world if you wish.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

One must wonder how shaky a claim is, when it can only be validated by Donald Trump.

 

[Apocalypse]

The Golan Heights have been under Israeli control for more than 50 years now.
It's been taken as a result of a defensive war against aggressors trying to completely destroy Israel.
The reason Israel needs to keep holding to it is because of its strategic importance.
The entire world should follow and recognize the Golan as Israeli territory.

 

[NO1]

NO1:

More proof of how detached from reality and mendacious the Trump Administration is in the age of alternative facts.

Why are you applauding willful delusion, even if it benefits your goals and aspirations? Both the Golan Heights and the the Occupied Palestinian Territories were seized militarily in a war initiated by Israel in June 1967 and thus cannot be annexed according to the UN Charter which Israel itself signed onto voluntarily. Both the Golan Heights and the West Bank are still occupied directly by Israeli troops and both are being illegally settled by Israeli settlers in direct contravention to both the Laws of War and International Law.

Applause for delusion, even self-interest driven delusion is pretty pathetic in my humble opinion. But clap away in your make-believe world if you wish.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

You wrong.
In 1967 Israel attacked Egypt, Israel also send messages to Jordan that they don't want war with them. Jordan and Syria were the ones who started the war against Israel. That is a fact. Israel attacked Syria and Jordan only in response to their attacks.
In addition there is a difference between country which take lands as part of aggresive action and country which take lands as part of war of defence, which is the case in the fronts against Jordan and Syria.

 

[Evilroddy]

The Golan Heights have been under Israeli control for more than 50 years now.
It's been taken as a result of a defensive war against aggressors trying to completely destroy Israel.
The reason Israel needs to keep holding to it is because of its strategic importance.
The entire world should follow and recognize the Golan as Israeli territory.

Apocalypse:

As I said we live in the age of alternative facts and from my POV your characterisation of the Six-Day War is counter-factual and thus very alternative. So you and the present US administration seem to share a penchant for self-interested self-delusion which most of the world does not share. But hey, feel free to repeat the alternatives until you are blue in the face.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[NO1]

One must wonder how shaky a claim is, when it can only be validated by Donald Trump.

In this case Trump is right. The term "occupied" is incorrect.

 

[Apocalypse]

Apocalypse:

As I said we live in the age of alternative facts and from my POV your characterisation of the Six-Day War is counter-factual and thus very alternative. So you and the present US administration seem to share a penchant for self-interested self-delusion which most of the world does not share. But hey, feel free to repeat the alternatives until you are blue in the face.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Your inability to accept history is not a concern of mine, and your attempts to alter it always fail so I really don't see the point.

 

[OlNate]

In this case Trump is right. The term "occupied" is incorrect.

Alright...I'll bite. Why not?

 

[What if...?]

The Golan Heights have been under Israeli control for more than 50 years now.
It's been taken as a result of a defensive war against aggressors trying to completely destroy Israel.
The reason Israel needs to keep holding to it is because of its strategic importance.
The entire world should follow and recognize the Golan as Israeli territory.

So Israel and outside Arab nations fought over the palestinains assigned dirt and the Israelis kept it from the Palestinians as a result.

Its like two strangers get in a fight over your wife and the victor gets, your wife.

 

[What if...?]

The Golan Heights have been under Israeli control for more than 50 years now.
It's been taken as a result of a defensive war against aggressors trying to completely destroy Israel.
The reason Israel needs to keep holding to it is because of its strategic importance.
The entire world should follow and recognize the Golan as Israeli territory.

And don't forget the water rights to the water from the Golan.

 

[NO1]

Alright...I'll bite. Why not?

post #5

 

[OlNate]

post #5

Ah, you're using your personal analysis of events to trump the UN appraisal of the situation.

Not sure that overturns the UN rulings, though.

 

[Evilroddy]

You wrong.
In 1967 Israel attacked Egypt, Israel also send messages to Jordan that they don't want war with them. Jordan and Syria were the ones who started the war against Israel. That is a fact. Israel attacked Syria and Jordan only in response to their attacks.
In addition there is a difference between country which take lands as part of aggresive action and country which take lands as part of war of defence, which is the case in the fronts against Jordan and Syria.

NO1:

Nope, you're wrong in this matter. The Jordanian and Egyptian armed forces were under a common command structure by treaty in June 1967 and the commander of Jordanian forces was Egyptian General Riad. The treaty between Egypt and Jordan viewed an attack on either country as an attack on both. Israel knew this when it attacked the Egyptian airforce in a surprise and undeclared attack which triggered the war. General Riad then commanded the Jordanians to counter attack by artillery fire in and around Jerusalem as a reaction. An Egyptian commander was in charge of Jordanian forces and reacted to the attack by Israel on the joint command, much like a Article 5 response in NATO. A similar arrangement was in place in Syria but with no Egyptian supreme commander in place.

Thus Israel started the war and the Arabs retaliated. That's the history with no alternative facts for dress up.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[NO1]

Ah, you're using your personal analysis of events to trump the UN appraisal of the situation.

Not sure that overturns the UN rulings, though.

You think Israel occupied the west bank from Jordan?

 

[NO1]

NO1:

Nope, you're wrong in this matter. The Jordanian and Egyptian armed forces were under a common command structure by treaty in June 1967 and the commander of Jordanian forces was Egyptian General Riad. The treaty between Egypt and Jordan viewed an attack on either country as an attack on both. Israel knew this when it attacked the Egyptian airforce in a surprise and undeclared attack which triggered the war. General Riad then commanded the Jordanians to counter attack by artillery fire in and around Jerusalem as a reaction. An Egyptian commander was in charge of Jordanian forces and reacted to the attack by Israel on the joint command, much like a Article 5 response in NATO. A similar arrangement was in place in Syria but with no Egyptian supreme commander in place.

Thus Israel started the war and the Arabs retaliated. That's the history with no alternative facts for dress up.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

in six days war, did Israel was the first to launch an attack on the soil of Jordan? Or it was Jordan which launch attacn on Israel soil?

 

[Evilroddy]

in six days war, did Israel was the first to launch an attack on the soil of Jordan? Or it was Jordan which launch attacn on Israel soil?

NO1:

Yup. The treaty made the territories (soils) and airspace of both states intertwined, the common command structure made Egyptian and Jordanian territory one and the same for military purposes and thus an attack on one was an attack on both. That's how mutual defence treaties work. That's the same reason France and Britain entered WWII when Nazi Germany attacked Poland in Sept. 1939.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[NO1]

NO1:

Yup. The treaty made the territories (soils) and airspace of both states intertwined, the common command structure made Egyptian and Jordanian territory one and the same for military purposes and thus an attack on one was an attack on both. That's how mutual defence treaties work. That's the same reason France and Britain entered WWII when Nazi Germany attacked Poland in Sept. 1939.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

You dodged the question.
It's a fact that Jordan attacked Israel first, you can't argue that. Once the did it, no matter the treaty, they are the aggresive side.

Anyway, did Jordan was the owners of the WB?

 

[Evilroddy]

You dodged the question.
It's a fact that Jordan attacked Israel first, you can't argue that. Once the did it, no matter the treaty, they are the aggresive side.

Anyway, did Jordan was the owners of the WB?

No dodge. Jordan and Egypt had attached themselves by treaty so that an attack on one was an attack on both. When Israel attacked Egypt it attacked Jordan too. Jordanian armed forces under Egyptian command responded accordingly. It's all a matter of public record even if some folks want to deny it.

Jordan was not the owner of the West Bank. It was the protector of the West Bank which was held in trust for the Palestinian people. This status was approved by the UN IIRC.

 

[Apocalypse]

No dodge. Jordan and Egypt had attached themselves by treaty so that an attack on one was an attack on both. When Israel attacked Egypt it attacked Jordan too. Jordanian armed forces under Egyptian command responded accordingly. It's all a matter of public record even if some folks want to deny it.

Jordan was not the owner of the West Bank. It was the protector of the West Bank which was held in trust for the Palestinian people. This status was approved by the UN IIRC.

So what you're saying is that you find it legitimate that Jordan acts in an act of aggression against Israel because of an agreement with Egypt yet you do not find it legitimate that Israel acted in defense against Egypt because of their blockading of the straits of Tiran, when Nasser knew that this is a casus beli.

That's not just your regular history denial and inability to accept anything that isn't your alternative reality, this is actually quite hypocritical.

 

[Evilroddy]

So what you're saying is that you find it legitimate that Jordan acts in an act of aggression against Israel because of an agreement with Egypt yet you do not find it legitimate that Israel acted in defense against Egypt because of their blockading of the straits of Tiran, when Nasser knew that this is a casus beli.

That's not just your regular history denial and inability to accept anything that isn't your alternative reality, this is actually quite hypocritical.

Apocalypse:

Israel started the Six Day War by attacking the Egyptian Air Force in a surprise attack on Egypt. Israel was the attacker and the aggressor. Period. Trying to divide the one Six Day War into three discrete sub wars in order to create artificial thresholds is ahistorical. Deal with it please.

Evilroddy.

 

[Apocalypse]

Apocalypse:

Israel started the Six Day War by attacking the Egyptian Air Force in a surprise attack on Egypt. Israel was the attacker and the aggressor. Period. Trying to divide the one Six Day War into three discrete sub wars in order to create artificial thresholds is ahistorical. Deal with it please.

Evilroddy.

Egypt started the six days war with the blockading of the straits of Tiran. Egypt was the aggressor. That's the version that is called 'history'.
Israel was the first to land a hit, but not the one to initiate the conflict.
In general Israel is not the one to initiate conflict with its enemies who wish its destruction.

Your hypocrisy however is in thinking that Jordan landing a first hit on Israel isn't an aggression and Israel doing so with Egypt is.

The truth is that the Arab nations were the aggressors because they initiated the conflict and this is what defines an aggressor.

 

[Evilroddy]

Egypt started the six days war with the blockading of the straits of Tiran. Egypt was the aggressor. That's the version that is called 'history'.
Israel was the first to land a hit, but not the one to initiate the conflict.
In general Israel is not the one to initiate conflict with its enemies who wish its destruction.

Your hypocrisy however is in thinking that Jordan landing a first hit on Israel isn't an aggression and Israel doing so with Egypt is.

The truth is that the Arab nations were the aggressors because they initiated the conflict and this is what defines an aggressor.

The Six-Day War was from June 5th to June 10th, 1967. The Straits of Tiran dispute began before the war. If you want to push back the dates then I would suggest November of 1966 when Israel launched a massive raid into Jordanian controlled territory with a dozen tanks, fifty half-tracks, 3500 combat troops and 5500 support troops as a collective punishment against three villages for an alleged mine attack on Israeli soldiers. But like the Samu Raid, the Straits of Tiran closure was not part of the Six-Day War.

Evilroddy.

 

[NO1]

No dodge. Jordan and Egypt had attached themselves by treaty so that an attack on one was an attack on both. When Israel attacked Egypt it attacked Jordan too. Jordanian armed forces under Egyptian command responded accordingly. It's all a matter of public record even if some folks want to deny it.

So you are saying that the treaty is the reason for Israel aggression so after 1956 when Egypt agreed to:
1. Sinai is to be demilitarized.
2. Israel-bound shipping in Tiran will go undisturbed.
3. A UN Emergency force will be established to supervise all the above along the Israeli-Egyptian border

And Israel announced that closing Tiran Straits will be count as act of war.
And At May 1967 Egypt violated all three of them and called for the destruction of Israel time and again. That's treaty count as well?

Also the defence treaty between them made about a week ago before the war, and Egypt should have tricked Hossian in order to convince them to attack Israel. So I guess it wasn't like you are saying. It's pretty clear the Jordan is independent country and if they knew Egypt was being crashed by Israel air force they would probably think twice before launcing an attack. Also it is a fact the Jordan and Syriaattack first, you can't denied it.

So no matter what approach you make, you still loose the argument. Also after the war Russia and others tried to announce Israel as the aggressor in the UN (even the UN), and they failed because it was clear that Israel responed to the aggression of the Arab countries.

Jordan was not the owner of the West Bank. It was the protector of the West Bank which was held in trust for the Palestinian people. This status was approved by the UN IIRC.

Jordan illegali annexed the WB. They are not the owners of the WB as you said, so the area can't be occupied.

 

[SheWolf]

One must wonder how shaky a claim is, when it can only be validated by Donald Trump.

Trump said a few days ago, if he were running for president in Israel, he would easily win, because he gets over 90 percent approval. It's easy for him. But this isn't America First.

He disrespects all of our other allies, and fights with them over funding. But with Israel,he is totally different. It makes no sense.