Ok, a court with zero enforcement power might rule on a territorial dispute, so?
The only resolution is going to come from the disputing parties agreeing or someone with a terrible amount of power going to war. Neither is going to happen any time soon and other feeble actions don’t help.
In any UN vote where Canada, the US, and the UK all vote one way, and Iran, North Korea, China, and Russia all vote the other way, I know which side I support.
It sounds like you are taking a stance based on countries you like.
Do you think it is unwise to blindly take a stance because someone else takes a stance? I mean it’s like following someone’s opinion without critical thinking right?
What is your opinion on sovereignty and occupation by force? How does that work with Russia and Ukraine and do you see any parallels with Israel and Palestine?
I'm not sure whats more incredible, that the US once again votes against any resolution seeking accountability for Israel's brutal occupation of the Palestinian territories or the Western media's mute response to it, especially in light of the current conflict in Europe. What reasonable justification could there possible be to vote against the ICJ to produce an opinion? Yet the US is currently seeking to take Russia to the ICJ for its actions in Ukraine.
The US & Western governments have absolutely zero moral standing at all to criticise Russia's illegal annexations of Ukrainian territories when they themselves turn a blind eye to their allies annexation of another neighbours territory (Golan Heights, Syria). Despite there being an existing UN resolution (497) rejecting the annexation, the US under Trump has formally recognised Golan Heights as US territory in 2017! [1].
> The US & Western governments have absolutely zero moral standing at all to criticise Russia's illegal annexations of Ukrainian territories when they themselves turn a blind eye to their allies annexation of another neighbours territory
Kinda like Arab/Muslim countries denying Israel's right to exist due to "apartheid" when almost all of them practice different shades of apartheid. Iran is a good example of this but really this is prevalent in the whole area.
> the US under Trump has formally recognised Golan Heights as US territory in 2017! [1].
No, it didn’t.
And, in any case, the Biden Administration, while simultaneously claiming it was not changing the policy under which Trump recognized Israeli control of Golan, has restated it as being that the US sees Israeli control as in Israel’s legitimate security interests given Syrian aggression and the aggressive bent of the current Syrian regime, but that a change in that situation would potentially result in a reassessment.
[+] [-] colechristensen|3 years ago|reply
The only resolution is going to come from the disputing parties agreeing or someone with a terrible amount of power going to war. Neither is going to happen any time soon and other feeble actions don’t help.
[+] [-] josephcsible|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] demarq|3 years ago|reply
Do you think it is unwise to blindly take a stance because someone else takes a stance? I mean it’s like following someone’s opinion without critical thinking right?
What is your opinion on sovereignty and occupation by force? How does that work with Russia and Ukraine and do you see any parallels with Israel and Palestine?
[+] [-] hackrnusr|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aliyfarah|3 years ago|reply
The US & Western governments have absolutely zero moral standing at all to criticise Russia's illegal annexations of Ukrainian territories when they themselves turn a blind eye to their allies annexation of another neighbours territory (Golan Heights, Syria). Despite there being an existing UN resolution (497) rejecting the annexation, the US under Trump has formally recognised Golan Heights as US territory in 2017! [1].
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_recognition_of_t...
[+] [-] schoolornot|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] weatherlite|3 years ago|reply
Kinda like Arab/Muslim countries denying Israel's right to exist due to "apartheid" when almost all of them practice different shades of apartheid. Iran is a good example of this but really this is prevalent in the whole area.
[+] [-] dragonwriter|3 years ago|reply
No, it didn’t.
And, in any case, the Biden Administration, while simultaneously claiming it was not changing the policy under which Trump recognized Israeli control of Golan, has restated it as being that the US sees Israeli control as in Israel’s legitimate security interests given Syrian aggression and the aggressive bent of the current Syrian regime, but that a change in that situation would potentially result in a reassessment.
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]