BEIRUT, LEBANON (8:45 P.M.) – The General Assembly of the United Nations voted overwhelmingly in favor on Friday of recognizing the Golan Heights region as Syrian territory.

A total of 151 votes were cast in favor of the draft resolution, while both the United States and Israel voted against it.

Another 14 states abstained from the vote, resulting in the adoption of this latest draft that calls for the condemnation of Israel’s occupation of the Golan Heights.

During the meeting of the General Assembly’s Fourth Committee, Syria’s Permanent Representative at the UN Dr. Bashar al-Jaafari said that the vast majority of nations favored the resolution, adding that it sends a clear message to Israel about its ongoing occupation of the Golan Heights.

Furthermore, Al-Jaafari said that this vote shows that the majority of members states are against the continuation of the Israeli occupation of the Syrian Golan, and also affirms that Israel’s attempts to annex the Golan are null and void and without any legal effect.

Syria’s Representative said that the United States’ vote against the resolution isn’t surprising, since Washington is Israel’s partner in its wars and aggression in the region.

He accused the U.S. of allowing businesses like Genie Energy, Afek, and AES Corporation of conducting the illegal exploration of the Golan Heights’ oil.

Advertisements
Share this article:
  • 3.6K
  •  
  •  
  •  
  • 1
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    3.6K
    Shares
ALSO READ  Turkey deliberately targeted US troops in northern Syria: media

Notice: All comments represent the view of the commenter and not necessarily the views of AMN.

All comments that are not spam or wholly inappropriate are approved, we do not sort out opinions or points of view that are different from ours.

This is a Civilized Place for Public Discussion

Please treat this discussion with the same respect you would a public park. We, too, are a shared community resource — a place to share skills, knowledge and interests through ongoing conversation.

These are not hard and fast rules, merely guidelines to aid the human judgment of our community and keep this a clean and well-lighted place for civilized public discourse.

Improve the Discussion

Help us make this a great place for discussion by always working to improve the discussion in some way, however small. If you are not sure your post adds to the conversation, think over what you want to say and try again later.

The topics discussed here matter to us, and we want you to act as if they matter to you, too. Be respectful of the topics and the people discussing them, even if you disagree with some of what is being said.

Be Agreeable, Even When You Disagree

You may wish to respond to something by disagreeing with it. That’s fine. But remember to criticize ideas, not people. Please avoid:

  • Name-calling
  • Ad hominem attacks
  • Responding to a post’s tone instead of its actual content
  • Knee-jerk contradiction

Instead, provide reasoned counter-arguments that improve the conversation.

newest oldest most voted
Notify of
LidMad88
Member
Master
Commenter
Upvoted
LidMad88

Golan is SYRIAN land and it will always be SYRIAN! ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Member
Master
Commenter
Upvoted
Nestor Arapa

EE.UU. e Israel siempre se burlaron de este organismo.

Sweet Robert
Guest
Sweet Robert

Glad he mentioned corporate business interests as a driver in foreign policies/aggression/aspirations/war.

David
Guest
David

This site is unduly cumbersome and much too slow to respond. It takes forever to write a comment or response. I suggest you update it

Member
Famed Member
Master
Commenter
Upvoted
Stern Daler

General assembly of UN has no rights. Only UN Security counsel decisiond have any value.

Member
Master
Commenter
Upvoted
Nestor Arapa

No sirve la ONU….

Member
Famed Member
Master
Commenter
Upvoted
Stern Daler

@Nestor, the UN works if all victors of WW II agree.

They founded the UN for their political agenda.

But if ONE of them acts as a rogue state – UN doesn’t.

BDS
Guest
BDS

You think the UNSC is going to give Israel sovereignty over the Golan Heights? Russia’s a UNSC member and it voted in favor. The UNSC’s decisions may be the only ones that are legally binding, but the vote is a clear message to Israel just as the one on Jerusalem.

Daeshbags-Sux
Guest
Daeshbags-Sux

And so what? Nobody will dare to invade a nuclear power and nobody has interest to sanction them, so Golan will NEVER go back to Syria. Moreover, Israel has even, thanks to Hezbollocks and IRC, the right to invade Syria since they provided anything Tsahal may want to break the 1974 ceasefire 🙂 And they can do the same with Lebanon and even, if they weren’t a purely defensive army and had means of projection, invading Iran, Qatar and Turkey, thanks to the ‘axis’ that funds and arms Hamas. Any way, Syria lost Golan after having started a war of… Read more »

restrain
Guest
restrain

Either people know how to restrain themselves or nobody reads this.

BDS
Guest
BDS

Using nukes on neighboring Lebanon or Syria? A “purely defensive army”? “Invading Iran .. and Turkey”??? Are you in 3rd grade or 4th? You’re not even worth debating.

Member
Famed Member
Master
Commenter
Upvoted
Stern Daler

@BDS, Daeshbags-Sux argues merely as insane as anti Semites who threaten to destroy Israel and annihilate the Jews.

Yes, potentially an Atomic power can do such things.

Israeli IDF act often aggressive but not insane.

p.s. If You answer with slander You have admitted defeat to our French friend.

BDS
Guest
BDS

Lebanon is way too close to have a nuclear bomb go off there without it affecting the Israelis. That’s “insane”. I’m not even going to argue with you about the IDF because I know you’re their fan boy and it’d be like making fun of your hero.

Member
Famed Member
Master
Commenter
Upvoted
Stern Daler

@BDS, there are several kinds of Atomic bombs. Not all have much radioactive fallout. I said that the A bomb is the weapon of last resort? Yes I did at 10:53. You write later, IDF cannot because it can affect the Israelis. IDF can because some in their arsenal will be for the Samson option & they will be dirty bombs. You are an anti-Semite fan boy. I am no fan. Still IDF are far above any single army in the region to challenge in a serious war. Until then IDF’ll avoid major loses. Other boastful talk is wishful thinking.

Member
Famed Member
Master
Commenter
Upvoted
Stern Daler

@Daeshbags-Sux, 7 days war was an preemptive strike of Israel so Israel started. Else Germany had not started WW I by an preemptive strike against France and its allies.

Israel even in a war has no right to use weapons of mass destruction unless its original 1948 borders or population are threatened. A bombs are a last resort.

Israel has no right to war preemptively outside its borders. It must only act on direct attack in a appropriate manner.

David
Guest
David

For the record, “Israel” is neither a state nor a country, i.e., it has yet to officially declare its borders and have them agreed to as such by the international community.

Member
Famed Member
Master
Commenter
Upvoted
Stern Daler

@David, from the record: In 1947, the United Nations (UN) adopted a Partition Plan for Palestine recommending the creation of independent Arab and Jewish states and an internationalized Jerusalem. The plan was accepted by the Jewish Agency, and rejected by Arab leaders. During the Turkish and British time there had been extensive immigration of both Muslim Arabs and Jews into that part of Palestine that is Israel today. The following year, 1948, the Jewish Agency declared the independence of the State of Israel, and the subsequent 1948 Arab–Israeli War saw Israel’s establishment over most of the former Mandate territory. The… Read more »

David
Guest
David

Reality: Indigenous Palestinian Arabs, who then made up 69% of the population, rejected the Partition Plan (UNGA Res. 181, Nov. 29/47) for entirely justified reasons based on international law. While Jews made up just 31% of the population (90% were of foreign origin, thousands were illegal immigrants) and privately owned only between 6% and 7% of the land, the Partition Plan (recommendatory only, no legal foundation, contrary to the British Class A Mandate and the 1941 Atlantic Charter, never adopted by the UNSC) outrageously recommended they receive 56% of Palestine (including its most fertile areas) in which Palestinians made up… Read more »

Member
Famed Member
Master
Commenter
Upvoted
Stern Daler

@David, Your quote: “outrageously recommended they receive 56% of Palestine (including its most fertile areas) in which Palestinians made up 45% of the population.” This means that the Jews had a majority in that section which included the most fertile land. So You better cut the word outrageously. All know that during Turkish and British times there was much legal and some illegal immigrations of both Arabs and Jews into the contested land. Neither of the colonial powers granted citizenship in the way You and the author of the text take for granted. The referendum You demand was justified, but… Read more »

David
Guest
David

To reiterate the facts: Jews (90% of foreign origin, including thousands of illegals and 10% comprised of anti-Zionist native Palestinian Arab Jews) constituted only 31% of the total population and PRIVATELY OWNED A MERE 6-7% of the land. Nonetheless the illegal, recommendatory only, contrary to the British Class A Mandate, never adopted by the UNSC, 1947 Partition Plan recommended Jews receive 56% of Palestine and the indigenous Arab Palestinians who comprised 69% of the population, and PRIVATELY OWNED 48% of the land were to receive only 42% with the remaining 2% comprising East and West Jerusalem and Bethlehem to be… Read more »

David
Guest
David

For your much needed further edification To be brief: THE 1947 PARTITION PLAN Palestinians Arabs, who made up 69% of the population, rejected the Partition Plan (UNGA Res. 181, Nov. 29/47) for entirely justified reasons based on international law. While Jews made up just 31% of the population (90% were of foreign origin, thousands were illegal immigrants) and privately owned only between 6% and 7% of the land, the Partition Plan (recommendatory only, no legal foundation, contrary to the British Class A Mandate and the 1941 Atlantic Charter, never adopted by the UNSC) outrageously recommended they receive 56% of Palestine… Read more »

George
Guest
George

@Daeshbags-Sux
I was going to call you an under-educated idiot for twisting the facts, but that insults under-educated idiots 😉

David
Guest
David

Reality: The June 1967 War was started by Israel: At 7:45 AM on 5 June 1967, Israel attacked Egypt and thereby, Jordan and Syria who each shared a mutual defense pact with Egypt. The attack took place just hours before Egypt’s VP Mohieddine was to fly to Washington for a prearranged June 7th meeting with the Johnson administration to defuse the crisis between Egypt and Israel based on an agreement worked out in Cairo between Nasser and Johnson’s envoy, Robert Anderson. In a cable sent to Johnson on May 30, Israel’s PM Eshkol promised not to attack Egypt until June… Read more »

Member
Famed Member
Master
Commenter
Upvoted
Stern Daler

@David, there was an ongoing violent armed conflict over water and other things. The Arab armies also had prepared war and had harassed Israel. You cannot bombard the borders and pretend You did not also start the war. With the Arab bellicose rhetoric of war, the verbal threats of genocide and the buildup of armies on Israeli borders there was IMHO little choice but to start the preemptive war before the Arab armies were/had coordinated to attack Israel at the same time. Germany did the same against France and Russia in 1914. You do this if You have a highly… Read more »

David
Guest
David

You continuously spew forth nonsense. I’ve had enough. Get educated!! Bye bye.

Member
Famed Member
Master
Commenter
Upvoted
Stern Daler

Pleased to meet You.

Maybe You should have studied some history?

David
Guest
David

Reality:

Prime Minister Menachem Begin, former Minister without portfolio in PM Levi Eshkol’s cabinet, while addressing Israel’s National Defence College on 8 August 1982: “In June, 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.” (New York Times, 21 August 1982)

David
Guest
David

Prime Minister Menachem Begin, former Minister without portfolio in PM Levi Eshkol’s cabinet, while addressing Israel’s National Defence College on 8 August 1982: “In June, 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”

Meir Amit, chief of Israel’s Mossad: “Egypt was not ready for a war and Nasser did not want a war.”

Member
Famed Member
Master
Commenter
Upvoted
Stern Daler

@David, then Nasser should not have issued bellicose rhetoric.You are either ready for war or shut up. Clausewitz said something like You must be tougher than the others know.

p.s. Mehr sein als scheinen.

David
Guest
David

For your much needed edification: Due largely to sloppy or deliberately misleading reporting by the main stream media just prior to and after the war, many Americans became convinced that Nasser was preparing to launch a genocidal war against Israel. Television news commentators and newspaper articles quoted him as declaring during a radio broadcast on 26 May 1967, “our basic objective will be to destroy Israel.” This classic example of misrepresentation by omission was a key tactic in what proved to be a successful propaganda campaign by the pro-Israel lobby to convince Americans and much of the western world that… Read more »

Member
Famed Member
Master
Commenter
Upvoted
Stern Daler

@David, I was not in the US then and I know. And I do not need education since I make my own texts and not lengthy quotes from books.

David
Guest
David

Reality: The classic example of misrepresentation by omission you refer to was a key tactic in what proved to be a successful propaganda campaign by the pro-Israel lobby to convince Americans and much of the western world that Israel’s invasion of Egypt was justified. Nasser’s full statement to the Arab world on Egyptian radio during his May 26th address to the General Council of the International Confederation of Arab Trade Unions regarding the possibility of war with Israel was as follows: “If Israel embarks on an aggression against Syria or Egypt, the battle against Israel will be a general one… Read more »

Member
Famed Member
Master
Commenter
Upvoted
Stern Daler

@David, You quote better than You read. I wrote that I soon knew that Israel embarked on a preemptive war before its enemies were ready.

p.s. That is a normal procedure. All fair in love and war – say the English.

David
Guest
David

Furthermore:: Meir Amit, chief of Israel’s Mossad: “Egypt was not ready for a war and Nasser did not want a war.” Israeli Chief of Staff Rabin: “I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent into Sinai on 14 May would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.” (Le Monde, 25 February, 1968) Prime Minister Eshkol: “The Egyptian layout in the Sinai and the general military buildup there testified to a military defensive Egyptian set-up south of Israel.” (Yediot Aharonot, l8 October 1967) Robert McNamara,… Read more »

Member
Famed Member
Master
Commenter
Upvoted
Stern Daler

@David, You storm open doors with massive quotes as a battering ram. I already knew what was going on when the war started.

BTW. Blocking an international or national straits and searching ships is an unfriendly act and not done normally. Russia and Ukraine are in such a dispute currently and each side said the other side is wrong.

p.s. You know that Finkelstein is strongly biased because of his personal and family history.

And I know it also.

Internet made easy checking on public figures past and current employments and so on.

Member
Famed Member
Master
Commenter
Upvoted
Stern Daler

@BDS, Golan is Druze territory. They have the right to chose.

No UNSC, no Balfour promise, no Israeli occupation can change that.

David
Guest
David

About 150,000 Syrian nationals, including many of the Druze faith were dispossessed and expelled from Syria’s Golan Heights during and after the war Israel launched on 5 June 1967. The Druze were/are Syrian citizens, i.e., the Golan Heights are Syrian, not Druze.

Member
Famed Member
Master
Commenter
Upvoted
Stern Daler

@David. AFAIK the Druze militia took their Golan homeland during the Arab-Israeli war. The Druze state had joined Syria during the time before btw. the Druze contingent enabled the Syrian army to take the Golan. The Druze settled in the region when it was desolate in the 17th century. All others came after. So technically speaking we are both right. Private people are only dispossessed when their personal land is taken away from them. This happened to all that had left. BTW. President Assad also takes the land and houses of those that have left and do not return within… Read more »

Member
Famed Member
Master
Commenter
Upvoted
Stern Daler

So eight people do not like to be reminded of facts and voted facts down. They are brain washed like Zionists.

BDS
Guest
BDS

That’s a laugh. I guess I’m brain washed like Zionists. So you’re a Zionist if you disagree with a Zionist about being a Zionist?

Member
Famed Member
Master
Commenter
Upvoted
Stern Daler

@BDS, I am no Zionist. So what are You talking about.

Fact is: only UNSC can create binding decisions.

Ok You can have it altered. Voting down for stating facts is absolutely brainless. Not even Zionists are this dumb. 😛

David
Guest
David

On 17 December 1981, the UNSC unanimously passed Resolution 497, which declared Israel’s 14 December 1981 annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights “null and void.”

Member
Famed Member
Master
Commenter
Upvoted
Stern Daler

@David, I said it was a Druze homeland, didn’t I?

David
Guest
David

Your comment makes no sense. Yes, Druze have lived in the Golan Heights for centuries. However the Golan Heights belong to Syria.

Member
Famed Member
Master
Commenter
Upvoted
Stern Daler

The Druze state of Suwaida and all Druze joined Syria. Don’t You know history?

A referendum about the possession of an area is always asking the local population.

So Your argument about Syrian ownership makes no sense in this context.

David
Guest
David

Inane comment

David
Guest
David

Furthermore: On 24 February 2004, the U.S. State Department reaffirmed its earlier position in a report titled Israel and the Occupied Territories, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: “Israel occupied the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights after the 1967 War…. The international community does not recognize Israel’s sovereignty over any part of the occupied territories.” In its 2004 ruling, the International Court of Justice unanimously ruled that “No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal.” The World Court denoted this principle a “corollary” of the U.N.… Read more »

Member
Famed Member
Master
Commenter
Upvoted
Stern Daler

@David, I do not care what the US Sate Department said in the past and how it changes opinions. As Jerusalem belongs to both Palestinians and Israeli.

And the Golan heights were Druze homeland until the Ottomans and other colonial powers settled outsiders there. There must be a referendum among the Druze. No more no less.

David
Guest
David

Reality: Security Council Resolution 465 (1 March 1980) “determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity…” Israel’s 1980 annexation of East Jerusalem was rejected by the UN Security Council in Resolution 476 (June 30, 1980): “all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the Occupying Power, which purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant… Read more »

David
Guest
David

Another utterly inane comment. You should really learn something about international law.

Member
Famed Member
Master
Commenter
Upvoted
Stern Daler

You have an odd idea about self determination and direct democracy.

Now. What do You know about the past referendums in areas where people were allowed to choose their nationality and to which country the wanted to belong?

You sound much like the US and Ucrania when the the people in Crimea decided to be Russians. They also claimed – Russia and Crimea should learn about international law.

p.s. Smarty.