Quisling on the Golan

Over at Haaretz, the Quisling Victor Kattan argues against American recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan:

U.S. President Donald Trump’s formal recognition of the Golan Heights - captured from Syria in the June 1967 War - as part of Israel could be considered even more dangerous than his decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

Jerusalem.

The author argues:

Israel’s claim to the Golan Heights is based on security, not legal title. The territory was never included in the British mandate of Palestine. It was never promised to the Jewish people by the League of Nations. It was never mentioned in the UN Partition Plan. It was part of the French mandate for Syria, and part of the Syrian Arab Republic before it was captured.

Security. No shit, for real? 

Yes when one bombards people from high ground some will take umbrage or the Golan! Hence the Israeli occupation for 52 years and counting.

Kattan goes on:

Let me be clear: Israel’s decision to annex the Golan Heights was legally wrong, not just because the Security Council or any other state said it was wrong. It was wrong because the international community has prohibited the acquisition of territory by war since 1945. And the reason why the international community prohibited recognizing the acquisition of territory by armed conflict was in order to discourage further conflict by revisionist powers.

As if legalism mean anything to the likes of Assad, Nasrallah, etc etc.

Oh my sweet summer child. This is not a law school internationl mute court. This is the Middle East. 

My sweet summer child indeed.

*Via my friend Sarah Abed.