Trump formally recognises Israeli sovereignty over Golan Heights

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

according to all definition, Jew is son of Jacob , son of Isaac, Son of Abraham

i.e. you cannot CONVERT to Jews.

There is no historical record of Abraham.

 

[KhalaiMakhlooq]

Not according to Jewish law:

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/who-is-a-jew

thats why they call it Jew-ISH
rather than JEW.

 

[Norwegian]

Yes but the paper is recognised international law

Which doesn't changes anything on the ground. In reality the land (occupied or not) still belongs to Israel

 

[UKBengali]

Rubbish

Its a violation of international law and geneva

You cant steal territory or claim booty in war

The jews are thieves and Trumps declaration is worthless

Yep, future more sane US President will likely abrogate it.

US is led by the most idiotic President ever.

 

[gambit]

that is exactly my Point, Might is right is not the way of modern World, just because a country can take a land or territory it doesn't mean it belongs to them .

At the high minded level, you are correct. But pragmatically speaking, that is what we chose to recognize -- that to some respect, might make right.

Country A uses a landmark to attack Country B. Country B defeated A but in order to secure a peace, that landmark must be occupied and render ineffective for A.

The problem here is duration, as in how long is that occupation. The longer the occupation time, the stronger it becomes entrenched the thought that B sort of 'owns' that landmark. Nominally, if not legally. If the countries A and B came to some form of negotiated peace, then there would be informal pressure for B to give up that occupation, then eventually that pressure would become formal.

 

[pkd]

Interesting timing?? Formal recognition/announcement juxtaposed with the release of Muller report exonerating Trump??
@batmannow @MastanKhan

 

[UKBengali]

At the high minded level, you are correct. But pragmatically speaking, that is what we chose to recognize -- that to some respect, might make right.

Country A uses a landmark to attack Country B. Country B defeated A but in order to secure a peace, that landmark must be occupied and render ineffective for A.

The problem here is duration, as in how long is that occupation. The longer the occupation time, the longer it becomes entrenched the thought that B sort of 'owns' that landmark. Nominally, if not legally. If the countries A and B came to some form of negotiated peace, then there would be informal pressure for B to give up that occupation, then eventually that pressure would become formal.

So you agree with what the moron Trump has done?

It just makes USA look like a banana republic now.

 

[Norwegian]

Yep, future more sane US President will likely abrogate it.

US is led by the most idiotic President ever.

What's done is done. This is now foreign policy of future presidents

So you agree with what the moron Trump has done?

It just makes USA look like a banana republic now.

Trump is doing what should have been done long time ago (his own words)

 

[UKBengali]

What's done is done. This is now foreign policy of future presidents

No, it can be abrogated easily by any US President at will.

Trump is doing what should have been done long time ago (his own words)

That is why he is an imbecile.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

What's done is done. This is now foreign policy of future presidents

Wouldn't a Democrat president reverse Trump's EO?

 

[Norwegian]

No, it can be abrogated easily by any US President at will.

Yes but there is no political will because of Israeli lobby

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

Yes but there is no political will because of Israeli lobby

Israeli lobby is weak that's why no president before Trump moved US embassy to Jerusalem and recognized Golan as Israel land.

 

[gambit]

Correct , so my point is that just because Golan heights are now under Israel , doesn't make it their territory ... and everyone has to recognize it first .

As I pointed out earlier that one issue is time, the next issue is prestige. Like it or not, prestige matters -- very much.

Not everyone, but only those that are considered 'leaders' and the US is first in that category. The US can try to influence others, just as any other country can try to influence others in the opposite direction. The question is who is the more prestigious.

 

[YeBeWarned]

At the high minded level, you are correct. But pragmatically speaking, that is what we chose to recognize -- that to some respect, might make right.

Country A uses a landmark to attack Country B. Country B defeated A but in order to secure a peace, that landmark must be occupied and render ineffective for A.

The problem here is duration, as in how long is that occupation. The longer the occupation time, the stronger it becomes entrenched the thought that B sort of 'owns' that landmark. Nominally, if not legally. If the countries A and B came to some form of negotiated peace, then there would be informal pressure for B to give up that occupation, then eventually that pressure would become formal.

I agree but in this case, America is recognizing a captured part of territory as land of occupier , which will raise question what if Trump tomorrow formally recognize Afghanistan . Also than it will justify Russian annexation of Crimea too . but i do hope that both parties involved comes to some sort of arrangements to settle it cause territorial disputes can last forever .

 

[Norwegian]

Israeli lobby is weak that's why no president before Trump moved US embassy to Jerusalem and recognized Golan as Israel land.

It is not weak. US presidents before Trump always favored both sides in the conflict and played neutral part to resolve the conflict. US even forced Israel and Palestine to sign historic Oslo Peace Accords. What happened next is history.