Our Problematic Syria Policy

I am currently in Israel, in an area called the Golan Heights, which rests alongside the Syrian border. The following is a video blog that highlights the problematic policy the United States has with regards to Syria, and its larger role in the region.

 

Comments

[SimonNZ]

Why am I watching this guy on Huffpo, instead of in the Weekly Standard or the National Review?

Since the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have been such stunning successes, let's start a third war with
Syria! (who coincidentally are not making any more trouble in the region than any other country, including Israel.)

Is this the start of a new trend for recently unemployed Neocons from the Bush administration beginning their own brand of adventure tourism in the Middle East?

Now that they're out of power (thank God), do they aim to implement their crazy ideas by travelling to the region so they can stir up trouble "on the ground?"

[lkatzenberg]

Whaa?? I can get this kind of rubbish on YouTube anytime. Grenell is of course - as correctly pointed out below - in the occupied Golan Heights. And has clearly been sipping on the Israeli koolaid given to tourists with video cams who cross into that territory.

[roselaw]

Neo-cons are not only disasters when it comes to foreign policy, they don't know their geography very well either.

[SadButWiser]

I would have thought that the rest of the Arab world should unite with Iran. Then we will see some balance in the Middle East.

[S1m0n]

No, Richard, you are in Syria. Occupied Syria, mind you, but you are definitely not in Israel.

[rissole]

Well said.

[califlefty]

Poorly said, because it's based on a fallacy. The Golan is not "occupied" either in law or in reality. See if you can wrap your head around this: Syria attacked without provocation in both 1967 and again in 1973. The basic precept of international law concerning the rights of a state victim of aggression (Israel) is that the victim then lawfully occupies the attacking state’s territory in the course of self-defense. What about "UN resolutions?" This is part of international law and the UN Charter does not give the General Assembly any power to amend that law. Thus Israel is entitled to remain in control of the territory involved pending negotiation of a treaty of peace. Still with me?

Now UN resolutions 242 (1967) and Resolution 338 (1973), expressed the requirement for settlement by negotiations between the parties,which Israel accepted. So why is Israel still in the Golan? The Syrians after losing both wars demanded automatic Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 frontiers. They continued hostilities and proclaiming "No recognition! No Peace! No negotiation!" Those are the facts, excepts in the minds of the excuse-makers and anti-Semites.

[WhitneyKyle]

Well said, despite the efforts of warmongering land takers to present history distorted to favor them.