But we already covered that… Israel is more moral than Syria. It’s better to have Israel controlling that territory.
Put another way, ‘residents of the Golan Heights should be denied self-determination and Israel should be rewarded for war because I personally prefer Israel.’
I mean, as a standard for the behavior of nations, would could be better than ‘@Timex likes it.’
Yeah, if it’s entirely contingent upon me being the enforcement arm, and I’m paying for the enforcement, them the enforcement becomes a reflection of my will.
If you think Syria is the good guy, then you are free to enforce things in their favor.
This bit is tendentious. Aren’t you better than that?
No, that’s what this comes down to.
International law doesn’t exist, as we’ve established. It is simply talk, because it lacks an enforcement mechanism.
So what we are talking about is the US acting, effectively unilaterally since no one else really has significant military capability, enforcing what we feel is right.
At this point, it’s no longer a hard coded set of laws. It’s simply a one off geopolitical decision.
And in this case, Syria is the bad guy. It’s better for everyone that Israel controls the Golan heights, including the people living there. And I’m not seeing anyone try to actually make an argument to the contrary… Just an impulsive rejection of the reality of the situation.
For people like Lynch from other countries, the idea of “international law” is comforting. It creates an illusion that they have equal say in what happens on the global stage.
But it’s just an illusion.
He doesn’t have an equal say. Because his military is relatively weak. If Germans want to have an equal say, then they can develop an equally strong military, because then they would be able to enforce their ideas.
But the idea that the US should invest it’s blood and treasure into a military, and then use it to enforce ideals that contradict it’s own interests? That’s silly. Why would we do that? No one pays us to be the world police.
Luckily, our interests generally overlap with most of the Western world. But opinions regarding Israel seem to be an area where we differ. (Although, really, maybe Germany’s opinion on this particular instance isn’t really the best to listen to, since you know… It’s their fault Israel exists at all)
So in that case, I’m gonna make the call based on my opinion of what is going to be the best outcome… And that’s for Israel to control that region. It’s best for the Israelis, and it’s best for the local population that chooses to not accept Israeli citizenship
Again, you can think that it’s better for those guys to be under Syrian control. I don’t know why you would. You certainly haven’t articulated why.
It’s tendentious because, as I’ve already pointed out and you have acknowledged, they are under Israeli control without any annexation, because they are living under Israeli occupation in what is an unresolved war; and that occupation will not end absent a massive sea change in Syrian governance so great as to cause the Israelis to trust them and cease occupying the Golan Heights, in which case the residents would presumably not be in danger from their own government.
Since we have already discussed this and you have acknowledged it, your insistent insinuation that my only possible motivation is that I prefer the current Syrian government is simply a lie, an exercise in dishonesty and ad hominem which ought to be beneath you but apparently is not. There is no dichotomy here between ‘annexation or Syrian control’, because there is at least one other option, which is the status quo, an Israeli occupation. Israel need not annex the Golan Heights, either to protect herself or the Syrians there. Israeli could simply continue to occupy the territory absent a peace settlement with Syria. Opponents of annexation in violation of international law need not take that position out of any sympathy at all with the Syrian government.
So what exactly do you want? Maybe let’s state that in nice, concrete, exact terms.
I want a President who doesn’t give Israel cover to violate international law, an Israel that doesn’t violate international law for no reason other than the cover of that license and a recent penchant for evil, and a Timex that doesn’t engage in tendentious arguments about it.
No, what, exactly, do you want Israel to do?
Again, concrete, exact terms.
Just lay it out. Lay out exactly what you want Israel to do.
Not.Annex.Golan.Heights.
Not.Annex.Other.Occupied.Territories.
What part of that is confusing to you?
So that already happened, in 1981. 38 years ago.
So what do you actually want Israel to do?
You want them to give that territory back to Syria?
That territory belongs to Syria under international law. As long as a state of war exists, Israel has the right to occupy it and the obligation to comply with international law in administering it. If Syria and Israel agree to a peace, Israel is obligated to stop occupying it; unless the specific terms of the peace make some other condition with respect to it.
(Yes, I know you don’t believe in international law, but my own views need not be constrained by that sort of nonsense.)
So you want Israel to give that land back to Syria, but continue to occupy it.
What is the actual benefit of that? How, specifically, does that improve the situation for anyone?
That is the status quo. It doesn’t involve Israel ‘giving’ anything, and your attempts to find something objectionable in my view are pathetic.
Israel has turned their historic security problems — which were the fault of their neighbors — into a project to annex their neighbor’s land. The only thing that has constrained them at all in so doing is the tepid objections of most of the other countries of the world. That the US would give them political cover on it now is precisely the sort of insanity that you would deplore in Trump if it were about almost anything else. It is no different than endorsing Russia’s territory grabs in the Ukraine.
No… The status quo is that Israel has annexed it. They did this 38 years ago.
So you want them to reverse that decision from 38 years ago. And that’s fine.
So then you can answer my question:
Fair enough.
It brings Israel into compliance with international law, which ought to be of value to them.
And now there’s this:
Well, the same can be said of law inside a country: at the end of the day it comes to cops with guns and bars of steel.
Granted, enforcement of international law has thusfar been spotty at best, but you gotta start somewhere to get to Star Trek.
Exactly, that’s why we have cops and prisons.
I’m still irritated Russia owns Prussia. That is wrong. That should be
Polish/German, not Russian.