Every year the joke that is the United Nations passes a resolution condemning Israel’s occupation of the Golan Heights. Every year, the U.S. abstains from voting on the resolution. Every year, it passes with only Israel voting against it.
But not this year. This year, the Trump administration decided to oppose the resolution. It passed by a vote of 151-2.
Bravo, President Trump.
The Golan Heights tower over Northern Israel. The Israelis need to occupy this territory to safeguard their national security. That need is all the more compelling now that the Assad regime has invited Iranian forces into Syria and these forces have taken up positions near Israel.
The U.S. was careful to say it was not, by virtue of this vote, recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. Instead, Ambassador Haley explained that the Syrian regime’s “atrocities prove its lack of fitness to govern anyone.” She also cited the the U.N.’s obvious bias against Israel.
Even with this explanation, the Washington Post seems unhappy about the U.S. vote. A headline in the paper edition sniffs, “U.S. takes a side as Israeli and Syrian diplomats clash over Golan Heights.”
Hell yeah, we’ve taken a side. The side of our close ally, not the side of a monstrous regime closely allied with our arch-enemy, Iran. Is there something wrong with this?
Syria was even less amused than the Post. Its ambassador to the U.N. declared that the Trump administration’s decision on the vote shows that the U.S. has relinquished its role as a sponsor of peace efforts in the Middle East.
If true, that’s great. Unfortunately, I don’t think it’s true.
The Syrian ambassador, hoping to downplay the commanding nature of the Heights, objected to referring to the territory in question as the Golan Heights. But anyone who has been in Northern Israel knows that “heights” is a perfect description of the territory. If it weren’t so high, it wouldn’t be as important for Israel to occupy it.
The fact that Syria feels the need to buttress its argument by using a more euphemistic, less imposing name for the territory reinforces the case against returning it to the butcher Assad.
The ambassador said Syrian would retake the territory by war, if necessary. The threat is laughable. Syria is fortunate that Israel hasn’t taken sides in its nasty neighbor’s civil war. Syria can ill-afford a war with Israel, and that will continue to be true once the civil war is over.
Even then, the Assad regime will be sitting on a powder keg. A war with Israel would explode that keg.
Meanwhile, Syria has its annual U.N. resolution. It is no value to Syria, except that it slightly diverts the world’s attention from the hundreds of deaths Assad, with the essential help of Russia and Iran, is inflicting on Syrians every day.
Where’s the U.N. resolution condemning Syria for that?
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.