Trump recognises Israeli annexation of Golan Heights

Totally unprompted by any external event and in contravention of the long-standing convention against acquiring territory through military conquest, Donald Trump yesterday recognised Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-47657843

Discuss.

Together with other decisions (if you can call this ostentatiously non-deliberative process that) in the same vein, this will effectively remove the US as a broker from the peace process in the Middle East. Even if the next government rescinds this nonsense, it signals that the US cannot be trusted to stick to its position, but will change its course radically with each new election.

He might be trying to do Netanyahu a favour. He's up for re-election soon.

Who, Netanyahu or Trump?

Netanyahu. He's also mired in corruption scandals, so Trump could empathise.

I'm not sure I don't understand why this question wasn't settled in the late 60s or early 70s. Why should Israel be expected to give it back to Syria?

Because conquering territory through war is seen as illegitimate since World War 2. Allowing it in this case opens all sorts of doors that you don't want to see opened, for example Russian ambitions in Crimea.

Even when the one doing the conquering was the one that was attacked in the first place? I can see why Israel would want to keep the Golan. It's a strategic high ground that Syria exploited to attack Israel, and after driving the Syrians back and capturing it in a counter-attack, it's a strategic high ground vital for defending Israel from future attacks from or through Syria. Israel would be nuts to give it back to the Syrians without rock solid guarantees that no one would use it to attack them ever again.

Doing the right thing is more important than getting something in return.

Anyone who looks at a map can see that defending northern Israel is utterly impossible if a hostile nation controls the Golan Heights. It would be like trying to protect Washington D.C. if the North Koreans had control of Maryland.

There's speculation out there that Netanahyu used Israeli intel to back Trump during his campaign - Obama had pretty much given up on him actually wanting the peace process towards the end. Trump endorsed him for his re-election back in 2016. That Kuschner has many investments in the area is also likely not a minor factor.

Considering that Syria was shelling Israeli targets from the Golan Heights before the Six-Day War, a very valid point.

Israel in the past (during the Clinton Admin.) has offered to give up 98% of the territory they controlled in the West Bank to the Palestinians. Yet the Palestinians said no. It is hard to see Israel ever being willing to give up more than that, IIRC even making that much of an offer virtually wrecked the political career of the Israeli Prime Minister at that time.

Good.

Because it’s time we stopped pretending we were a neutral broker for peace. We are on Israel’s side.

This might actually make peace finally possible because the Arab world is finally going to have to deal with the truth that Israel is never going anywhere.

Israel has held the Golan Heights for almost 50 years. That’s what happens when the other country, Syria, kept using the Golan Heights to attack Israel. You keep starting wars you lose territory.

A CNN headline I just saw on the monitor on the cafeteria: some prominent someone said "God has sent Trump to save Israel..."

Yes. You'll find that all aggressors portray themselves as victims, so trying to differentiate is a fools errand.

Without agreeing with your characterisation of the situation, that kind of scenario is why there is the concept of occupied territory - which is regarded as temporary. As opposed to annexation, which is permanent.

The Golan Heights are not in the West Bank.

Of course, one must consider that since Israel has territorial conflicts in the Golan Heights, West Bank, Gaza and formerly in Lebanon, that there's clearly a pattern.

That's a perfectly coherent position. A completely new one for the US, at least officially, but coherent.

No, the absence of mediation usually makes peace harder. But more likely than either of those scenarios is that Russia or China will step in and take over the US' former role.

Yes, unless otherwise specified in conditions of surrender. Which hasn't happened here. But more importantly, the principle of self-determination should decide who governs which territory, not who has won which war in the past.

Self determination is a stupid idea. Don't know why more western liberals don't support Benjamin Netanyahu. sure he is a former IDF soldier, but most of the able bodied males in Israel are for obvious reasons. But he has been a steady supporter of LGBT rights and isn't that kind of a major deal among most liberals.

It does. America stands by it's allies. Sets the proper tone.

As articulated by President Woodrow Wilson IIRC the basic idea of self determination is that each group of people in an area have an innate right to determine who governs them. In essence they have a right to their own country. This concept has been (justifiably) widely criticized because as someone once(correctly) pointed out "there isn't enough territory in the entire world to satisfy the demands of every group of people who would want their own country".

"self determination" at its core is a denial that disparate peoples can live among each other in peace and be governed by those not of their tribal or ethnic background. It is basically an appeal and empowerment of tribalism at its very core and very worst.

But not by its word. Which frankly would worry me just as much if I were an ally relying on the US.

No.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news...criticisms-proud-of-israel-s-record-1.6358564

Yes, let's ignore the collective punishment of the Palestinians in Gaza because he might possibly have said some nice things about gays, even if he fucked them over when it actually came to voting for surrogacy rights.

Anyhow, this is dangerous precedent, no matter whether you support Israel on the matter or not. By essentially telling the world it is legal to annex territory captured in war, Trump cedes any argument with which to condemn Russia for annexing Crimea or any other former USSR members it decides it would like back.