Is Israel's Annexing of the Golan Heights Similar to Russia's Annexing of Crimea? - Page 7 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14998218
Patrickov wrote:Does this include a payment? If yes, agreeing that would mean legitimizing the occupation itself.


:lol: what payment ? I haven't seen any mention of any payment to anyone.
Or is it because it is the {{{juice}}} that you think money is involved ?
:D

This reminds me of a discussion that occurred during a dinner at a friend's house years ago.
There were two Pakistani diplomats present with whom I was having a polite conversation, and, to keep the conversation flowing, I asked if Pakistan could have normal relations with India if India decided to give the whole of Kashmir to Pakistan.
They became quite angry and aggressive and said, in a not so polite or subdued tone, that India cannot give back what it did not possess in the first place.

Listen, if Israel proposed to give the Golan back to Syria in order to have peace with that country, there is no need to look for anything else. As it happened, Syria refused and that was that, and since then the Israelis enjoy Israeli Golan wine and can go skiing there in the winter.
#14998220
Ter wrote::lol: what payment ? I haven't seen any mention of any payment to anyone.
Or is it because it is the {{{juice}}} that you think money is involved ?
:D

This reminds me of a discussion that occurred during a dinner at a friend's house years ago.
There were two Pakistani diplomats present with whom I was having a polite conversation, and, to keep the conversation flowing, I asked if Pakistan could have normal relations with India if India decided to give the whole of Kashmir to Pakistan.
They became quite angry and aggressive and said, in a not so polite or subdued tone, that India cannot give back what it did not possess in the first place.

Listen, if Israel proposed to give the Golan back to Syria in order to have peace with that country, there is no need to look for anything else. As it happened, Syria refused and that was that, and since then the Israelis enjoy Israeli Golan wine and can go skiing there in the winter.


The bolded text is very much my guess on why Syria would have rejected the deal, if what you say is true -- you gotta produce evidence to prove your claims as well.

But you well explained the fact that, state pride pretty much depends on wordings.

I understand that it can be nonsense, but getting along means sometimes you understand this kind of nonsense and are able to cope with it.
#14998222
Patrickov wrote:Does this include a payment? If yes, agreeing that would mean legitimizing the occupation itself.

There was no payment included. The Israeli interest in trading away the Golan Heights was predicated on a belief that a peace treaty would break the Syria-Iran-Hezbollah axis. It later became clear that was never going to happen.
#14998224
Patrickov wrote:The bolded text is very much my guess on why Syria would have rejected the deal, if what you say is true -- you gotta produce evidence to prove your claims as well.

But you well explained the fact that, state pride pretty much depends on wordings.

I understand that it can be nonsense, but getting along means sometimes you understand this kind of nonsense and are able to cope with it.


There have been several rounds of negotiations but I quote only the first one, fresh after the 1967 war :

On 19 June 1967, the Israeli cabinet voted to return the Golan to Syria in exchange for a peace agreement, although this was rejected after the Khartoum Resolution of 1 September 1967

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golan_Hei ... gotiations

and in case anyone is not familiar with the Khartoum Resolutions:
no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it, and insistence on the rights of the Palestinian people in their own country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khartoum_Resolution
#14998227
Ter wrote:There have been several rounds of negotiations but I quote only the first one, fresh after the 1967 war :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golan_Hei ... gotiations

and in case anyone is not familiar with the Khartoum Resolutions:

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


It doesn't look as hostile as you suggest.

From the wikipedia article you quoted, the current conflict seems just that the US now chooses to unite the Sunni Arabs with the Jews against the Persians, which also explains why ISIL, however crazy and violent they are portrayed, seems not making any serious assault against Israel for most of its existence. It's hard to say who's really (more) evil, though my frequent comparison of the Israel government to the Nazis doesn't make this argument strong.

Things might change if some of the current environment changes, but I am not informed enough to predict when and how.

P.S. In some sense Iran should be handed the Nobel Peace Prize because it made itself an enemy of so many conflicting factions that a larger scale of peace is achieved.
#14998248
Ter wrote:I suppose that is a kind of Hungarian humour.

Orbán was right and he wasn't humouring anyone when he said east wind was blowing. He also wasn't joking when he said Azerbaijan was a model state (for him at least).

What do you think Putin means when he says 'We should not divide everything based on ethnicity and should not look back thinking of the war between France and Russia between 1812-14, but rather look to the future for ways to build a common future and follow this common path. This is how we can preserve this vast space and these people as a global centre that is significant for relations with Asian countries and the American continent.'

He means the end of the West as it is.



Ter wrote:Israel will go ? Where ?

Into oblivion?
#14998253
Ter wrote:I agree with Putin.
It is a folly of the West to consider Russia the enemy.


:D now you are just repeating the Arab wet dream.

Of course you agree with him because he says what he says in a way that makes you agree with him, however, it doesn't mean any good for Israel.

I don't mean to repeat the Arab wet dream, although by Arab you must mean the Palestinians because the Arab countries around Israel, except for Syria and Lebanon, are in cahoots with Israel. For now.
#14998822
Ter wrote::lol: what payment ? I haven't seen any mention of any payment to anyone.
Or is it because it is the {{{juice}}} that you think money is involved ?
:D

This reminds me of a discussion that occurred during a dinner at a friend's house years ago.
There were two Pakistani diplomats present with whom I was having a polite conversation, and, to keep the conversation flowing, I asked if Pakistan could have normal relations with India if India decided to give the whole of Kashmir to Pakistan.
They became quite angry and aggressive and said, in a not so polite or subdued tone, that India cannot give back what it did not possess in the first place.

Listen, if Israel proposed to give the Golan back to Syria in order to have peace with that country, there is no need to look for anything else. As it happened, Syria refused and that was that, and since then the Israelis enjoy Israeli Golan wine and can go skiing there in the winter.


Also, like the Palestinian terrorist groups & national movement, Syria participated in wars and terrorism against Israel before the occupation of the Golan in 1967! Why would the relationship be any different after sat a unilateral withdrawal by Israel tomorrow morning, for example?

The last big offer was made by Barak in 1999, remember that? He wanted a new 'commonly agreed border'. Israel would retain like 1% of the strip of land around the Sea of the Galilee. Assad could have accepted that and gotten like 99%, but exclaimed he "wanted to be able to run my feet in the water. Do they think we would try to poison the water? It's our water too."
#14999367
Beren wrote:I don't mean to repeat the Arab wet dream, although by Arab you must mean the Palestinians because the Arab countries around Israel, except for Syria and Lebanon, are in cahoots with Israel. For now.

I thought the Arab nations in the United Nations always voted against Israel. When did that change?
#14999382
Beren wrote:I don't mean to repeat the Arab wet dream, although by Arab you must mean the Palestinians because the Arab countries around Israel, except for Syria and Lebanon, are in cahoots with Israel. For now.


What you call Palestinians are Arabs from Egypt and Jordan who use that name to try and steal the land of the Jewish Homeland. And they don't want a little bit of land, they want it all. So they will get nothing.

Beren wrote:How does anything that happens in the UN matter?

Indeed, it matters not in the least.
The UN does provide a nice life to more than 7,000 so-called diplomats in New York and many more around the world but they have lost all significance since several decades.
#14999396
Beren wrote:Sure, they are, and I just repeat their wet dreams. :lol:

Have you been told you're always projecting, by the way? The fall of the West is not my wet dream, I simply see it happen, and unlike Europe, I don't see how Israel could switch sides.


The fall of the west will happen because of liberalism

Immigration from Africa and MENA have to stop even at the cost of economical benifits

Israel wont have to switch sides it will have to stay neutral as much as possible
hopefully at this point the palestinian issue will fade away along with the so called Palestinians themselves


And remember that along with the west fall LGBT,feminism,PC will all be gone aswell
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 14
Schizophrenia

Reality is really just the world that we all agre[…]

Election 2020

I predict that capitalists with a neo-imperialist[…]

That'll Just About Do It For Beto...

I doubt that this will have any impact. All the p[…]

There's ''productive'' in the sense of; ''got to […]