SYRIA VOWS TO ATTACK ISRAEL UNLESS IT WITHDRAWS FROM THE GOLAN HEIGHTS

1.The agreement says what experts in international law decide it says, which will never happen since experts always disagree with other experts, which is why we'll never know for sure what it says.

You know what's funny? There were plenty of Jewish properties on the Golan before WWI. Nobody ever compensated the owners for their loss, but that's not the funny part. The Golan was a part of Palestine (that's why Jews tried to settle there) until the British generously handed it over to the French. I've yet to hear even a shadow of an idea of a claim to the Golan by Palestinian or other Arab leaders, and the same is true for the almost 40% of Palestine - now in the Hashemite kingdom - on the eastern bank of the river Jordan. Seems that only the 30% where Israel is located is the target of Palestinian nationalists and their fans.

2. Please quote the international law that forbids states to go to war without the UNSC approval.

 

Well tough luck for all the babies you are making in your desire for a Christian Fascist World Theocracy. You are setting the world up for Total War and in this age that is Nuclear War.....

 

Bahteck @ leylack ahmar

 

That's why your people come to concour Europe ?

 

What you are saying makes no sense. You are just trying to hide what has been said. Make more posts and get it out of view. In addition my talking to you as a Christian Zionist is because you have proudly admitted to being one. You suggesting I am a Muslim is because you believe Muslims are sub human and you mean to insult me. Wow your God is certainly demonic - unlike progressive Christians who see their god as love and try to work in accordance to that.

Christian Zionists working to destroy International Law and the UN is them working to get 'Jews' to have all of Palestine their bible says it will have and to move one way or another as many Jews as they can get to Palestine. Then they believe there will be a war where most Jews will die and the rest will become demonic Christians like them. The reality that this will bring as described above will be Total War which will result in the end of humanity and hence rule out their desire for a Christian Fascist World Theocracy. Christian Zionists will never rule Israel as you suggested in a previous post. I hope they enjoy their time with the man with a tail. My dad thought it was very hot there.

 

WTF does that mean troll? Showing your true colours now speaking in what?

 

Everyone knows that Wiki is not a reliable research source. At best, it is to be used as a general starting place for conducting more detailed research.

Besides that, I note that you have no response to the far more detailed analysis by a highly regarded historian making use of first source material (Moshe Dayan, for example) to show what the occupation of the Golan was all about -- namely a land grab.

 

Konigsberg and Prussia are not occupied, they are now Russian territories. South Vietnam is not occupied, it now belongs to Hanoi. The Fourth Geneva Convention law was not intended for a country waging a war of aggression to not lose any land in a defeat, but that's how its interpreted.

 

Legally, the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, embodying rules of customary international law, apply to everything regarding war, not UNSC resolutions or the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Most UNSC resolutions don't say what pro-Palestinians claim anyway, so there. But of course you're welcome to quote the relevant passages from all those conventions and resolutions.

 

The alleged interview with Moshe Dayan wasn't published until after his death, many years after the supposed fact. There's no other source for those allegations. Unreliable.

Norman Finkelstein is not, and never was, a historian.

 

The UN is filled with anti-Semites who wish Hitler had completed his Final Solution.

 

Try to read what I wrote in context. I was speaking of German control of European nations during WWII as an example of occupation at a particular point in time, when said nations later reverted to sovereign states. The context was Syrian Golan occupied by Israel.

If you want to make a point about something else start your own thread rather than try to hijack this one.

 

Just been reading about the Sino-Vietnamese war and the Vietnamese land now held by China.
This happened six years after the Yom Kippur War which saw Syria lose part of the Golan.
I saw lots of people chanting "Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh" and vigorously supporting Pol Pot during the
so-called Vietnam War.
These virtue signaling, Marxist protestors were nowhere to be seen when Vietnam invaded
Cambodia and when China invaded Vietnam. These were imperialistic, militarist, gook killing
war machine episodes.
In short, the protestors were protesting America and Western values - the Indo Chinese were
little more than convenient gooks.

Same on this board, actually.
What's the chance that anyone on this forum will bring up Kenya and Sth Sudan? Or Swaziland
and Sth Africa? Yemen and Somalia? China and Bhutan? India and Pakistan? India and Nepal?
Singapore and Malaysia? Russia and Kazakhstan? Venezuela and Dominica?

What's the chance anyone on this forum will bring up these issues?
Unless your rant is anti-white racist, antisemitic, Marxist or Euro-Centric you are wasting your
time here.

 

You compared Israels occupation to a bank robber keeping the money, you obviously oppose the occupation and any annexing Israel might do and you seem to be comparing Israels occupation to German's. Maybe you don't recall, Germany was the aggressor and their occupation was stopped by forcing them out. Israels occupation is due to being attacked first. If they lost any of those wars the Arab nations would have wiped Israel off the map and I doubt many of those who oppose this occupation would care if the state of Israel disappeared.

 

If Israel was wiped off the map and its inhabitants were murdered then the Western
Left (well represented on this board) will wash their hands, say "We don't believe in
violence (but they had it coming.)" and move onto why Spain doesn't surrender the
Andalusians back to Moslem control.

 

Yes, Finkelstein is a professor and political scientist. My error.

I disagree with your thesis re Dayan. It isn't unheard of for high profile public figures such as Dayan to give an interview on what was unquestionably a sensitive subject on the condition that it is not published until their death (for example, the interview given by Commissioner Jorge Silva Colotto - Peron's aide de camp - to Laurence de Mello about Martin Bormann's post WWII survival and presence in Argentina circa 1947).

This doesn't mean the interview is unreliable but rather suggest that what he had to say was so extremely sensitive it would've have had a major impact on his life.

 

Israel won't give back the Golan without an IRON CLAD peace treaty with Syria. I doubt there is any scenerio at present where either side would agree since the level of trust between them is non-existent.

In the end, its going to come down to that regardless of what anyone else has to say about "legality" under international law.

Facts on the ground trump academic arguments of "legality" every time in this clustermuck.

 

1) nowhere in the agreement does Syria sign over the Golan to Israel - Your claim is simply not true.


2) You are the one that is supposed to providing evidence to back up your claim - not the reverse. It is preposterous nonsense for you to claim that Israel has some right to the Golan under international law - while providing ZERO evidence for this claim - and are now asking me for information on international law.

That said - I am willing to help you in your quest for knowledge.

The International Court of Justice, sometimes known as the "World Court" is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. (Previously you claimed that the UN has nothing to do with international law - this is false)

The General Assembly or the Security Council may request that the International Court of Justice provide an advisory opinion on any legal question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War

It is not some big secret that the UN has explicitly declared that the War in Iraq was illegal.

Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq

So not only was the Iraq war illegal in that it was not sanctioned by the UN Security council - it was illegal on the basis with violation of the UN's founding Charter - to which the US is a signatory.

You can call the UN illegitimate all you like - and that is fine. What this means however is that there is no such thing as "international law" - in which case your claim in relation to Israel is false.

 

Only a fan of conspiracy theories can imagine that activities such as described in the alleged interview could be kept secret. We're talking about thousands of people involved - from the commander in chief and his staff to simple soldiers through officers of all ranks, from the Prime Minister to clerks and secretaries through various members of government and Parliament, from private suppliers of equipment to workers in the field.Do you seriously expect all those people to keep all this knowledge secret for so many years, even after the alleged disclosure in the New York Times?

Nope, not likely.

 

Paleshtinian Bedouins fire 2 rockets from Gaza to Tel Aviv.
That's the true colours of those you support.

 

Since you know what 50 Million Christians believe in.. What will happen to the Arabs that live around the Jewish state ?

 

Who told you that ? Some brainddead idiot is pulling your chain.

 

Syria to attack Isreal....LOL! If Syria thinks its in a stone age now.....the stone age will look like a luxury, if Assad tries to attack Isreal....his head will be at the bottom of Bibis goldfish tank!)

 

1. It wasn't my claim. I only said that the agreement is open to interpretation.

2. I don't like Wiki. I don't like the Guardian either.

This dislike is only partly about what they're saying, and more about what they're not saying - generally speaking. In this particular case, Wiki doesn't tell us that ICJ advisory opinions are non binding, leading to a mistaken belief in nonexistent attributions of the court.

I didn't say that UN has nothing to do with international law. I said it's not a source of international law. It's individual members are bound by international laws generated by various treaties and agreements they signed, such as Non Proliferation, or the Geneva Convention. UN members are not bound by treaties and agreements they didn't sign. The fabled "international law" doesn't exist, not as an absolute immutable set of rules overriding national sovereignty and the will of nations.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/international-law

Read it all, it's enlightening.

I sincerely didn't expect you, from all people, to elevate a human endeavor to an almost religious level, as if some absolute "international law" has been bestowed upon us from high above. International law is what we, the nations of the world, make of it.

Nobody, including UN's own secretary general, can ask UN members to comply with the charter, while the five permanent Security Council members enjoy veto rights. Why should national interests of only five states be put above national interests of all other states, and why should national interests of only five states dictate policies of all other states?

 

Yes it was your claim - and that is not all you said. Go back to your original argument with respect to Israel having some legal claim to the Golan as per International law. A claim that is 1) a complete falsehood and 2) now you are arguing that international law does not apply.


Not sure why you posted the rest of the gibberish that you did. I am fully aware that the UN has no power to enforce international law. That does not change the fact that your "The UN has nothing to do with international law" was a complete falsehood.

This conversation has never been about the ability to enforce.