Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
PioneersIt already does!
Encroaches on the sovereignty of another State? Well, we could discuss that. I don't think you have much of a case. The one place where you might argue that Israel encroaches upon another sovereign State is arguably necessary for security.
However, the implication of the OP is that Israel would attempt to take territory from other sovereign States for the sole purpose of Imperial expansionism. That is silly. And entirely lacking evidence.
You say I don't have much of a case and then prove my case?!?!
Incorporating Golan Heights into Israel with the Golan Heights Law does NOT make it any kind of 'buffer zone' it simply extends Israel! That in itself is expansionism!
Israel didn't ask for the Golan Heights. The Golan was an estrategic grab. Syria chose to get involved in a war and it lost. It's was their problem. ISrael kept the Hermon since it was a high point and any future attack could be seen and expected.
What's the lesson? don't pick on the wrong kid.
Lebanon has forfeited its right to the area that it let Hezbollah take over. Now that Hezbollah is fighting in Syria, Israel should annex southern Lebanon.
Every country has a right to punish an invader by annexation. Otherwise, it will continue to be attacked. Israel should take back Gaza, the Sinai, and the West Bank and deport all Muslims from its territory except for the Druze.
Most of the United States was acquired through war, including the conquest of the land occupied by wandering savages. Israel is doing the same thing; that's why those who hate America hate Israel.
PioneersIt already does!
Encroaches on the sovereignty of another State? Well, we could discuss that. I don't think you have much of a case. The one place where you might argue that Israel encroaches upon another sovereign State is arguably necessary for security.
However, the implication of the OP is that Israel would attempt to take territory from other sovereign States for the sole purpose of Imperial expansionism. That is silly. And entirely lacking evidence.
You say I don't have much of a case and then prove my case?!?!
Incorporating Golan Heights into Israel with the Golan Heights Law does NOT make it any kind of 'buffer zone' it simply extends Israel! That in itself is expansionism!
Israel didn't ask for the Golan Heights. The Golan was an estrategic grab. Syria chose to get involved in a war and it lost. It's was their problem. ISrael kept the Hermon since it was a high point and any future attack could be seen and expected.
What's the lesson? don't pick on the wrong kid.
Lebanon has forfeited its right to the area that it let Hezbollah take over. Now that Hezbollah is fighting in Syria, Israel should annex southern Lebanon.
Every country has a right to punish an invader by annexation. Otherwise, it will continue to be attacked. Israel should take back Gaza, the Sinai, and the West Bank and deport all Muslims from its territory except for the Druze.
Most of the United States was acquired through war, including the conquest of the land occupied by wandering savages. Israel is doing the same thing; that's why those who hate America hate Israel.
No such thing as a Palestinian for the last 700 years of the Ottoman Empire.^^^ quoted for the win!For 2,000 years, the people called 'Palestinians' were Jews. The word didn't come to mean Arabs only until after 1967.
Actually "For the loss". For the win is the fact that it is documented that the Palestinians were called Palestinians at least as early as the fourth century AD. Of course, Palestine was a Christian land in 380 AD. The treatise below is about the Palestinian martyrs that died ealier on so, it can be assumed that the Palestinians were called Palestinians from when the territory was named Palaestina by the Romans.
"De martyribus Palestinae" (The Palestinian Martyrs)
A manuscript dated 411 AD by Eusebio of Cesarea, born in Caesarea Maritima, Palestine.
La tradizione manoscritta delle agiografie dei martiri palestinesi
In English:
(The manuscriptual tradition of the Palestinian martyrs)
Martiri palestinesi nell’Occidente latino. I casi della Passio Theodosiae virginis (BHL 8090) e della Passio Romani monachi (BHL 7298)
I don't see any mention about Arab Syrians.
Of course not, the indigenous people of Palestine did not become known as Arabs until they adopted the language of the Arabians. They were known as Palestinians, as the text confirms. Arab is a cultural and linguistic distinction, like Hispanic.
No such thing as a Palestinian for the last 700 years of the Ottoman Empire.^^^ quoted for the win!
Actually "For the loss". For the win is the fact that it is documented that the Palestinians were called Palestinians at least as early as the fourth century AD. Of course, Palestine was a Christian land in 380 AD. The treatise below is about the Palestinian martyrs that died ealier on so, it can be assumed that the Palestinians were called Palestinians from when the territory was named Palaestina by the Romans.
"De martyribus Palestinae" (The Palestinian Martyrs)
A manuscript dated 411 AD by Eusebio of Cesarea, born in Caesarea Maritima, Palestine.
La tradizione manoscritta delle agiografie dei martiri palestinesi
In English:
(The manuscriptual tradition of the Palestinian martyrs)
Martiri palestinesi nell’Occidente latino. I casi della Passio Theodosiae virginis (BHL 8090) e della Passio Romani monachi (BHL 7298)
I don't see any mention about Arab Syrians.
Of course not, the indigenous people of Palestine did not become known as Arabs until they adopted the language of the Arabians. They were known as Palestinians, as the text confirms. Arab is a cultural and linguistic distinction, like Hispanic.
That's interesting, the Ottomans conquered Palestine in 1516. Not so hot with math I see. And, the Ottomans called the place Filistin, Turkish for Palestine.
Oh dear, a Manual for Palestinian Arabic written under Ottoman rule (1909). When will Ruddy stop making things up?
View attachment 132371
If there were no Palestinians during Ottoman rule, why would there be a Palestinian Arabic during Ottoman rule?
1909, dumbass! Try again. Ottomans did not recognize a Palestine or Pslestinian.No such thing as a Palestinian for the last 700 years of the Ottoman Empire.^^^ quoted for the win!
Actually "For the loss". For the win is the fact that it is documented that the Palestinians were called Palestinians at least as early as the fourth century AD. Of course, Palestine was a Christian land in 380 AD. The treatise below is about the Palestinian martyrs that died ealier on so, it can be assumed that the Palestinians were called Palestinians from when the territory was named Palaestina by the Romans.
"De martyribus Palestinae" (The Palestinian Martyrs)
A manuscript dated 411 AD by Eusebio of Cesarea, born in Caesarea Maritima, Palestine.
La tradizione manoscritta delle agiografie dei martiri palestinesi
In English:
(The manuscriptual tradition of the Palestinian martyrs)
Martiri palestinesi nell’Occidente latino. I casi della Passio Theodosiae virginis (BHL 8090) e della Passio Romani monachi (BHL 7298)
I don't see any mention about Arab Syrians.
Of course not, the indigenous people of Palestine did not become known as Arabs until they adopted the language of the Arabians. They were known as Palestinians, as the text confirms. Arab is a cultural and linguistic distinction, like Hispanic.
That's interesting, the Ottomans conquered Palestine in 1516. Not so hot with math I see. And, the Ottomans called the place Filistin, Turkish for Palestine.
Oh dear, a Manual for Palestinian Arabic written under Ottoman rule (1909). When will Ruddy stop making things up?
View attachment 132371
If there were no Palestinians during Ottoman rule, why would there be a Palestinian Arabic during Ottoman rule?
1911?! You are a stupid shmuck! Give it up.Sigh. same old twist on the truth Monti. Not all converted to Christianity. The Jews moved north.Actually "For the loss". For the win is the fact that it is documented that the Palestinians were called Palestinians at least as early as the fourth century AD. Of course, Palestine was a Christian land in 380 AD. The treatise below is about the Palestinian martyrs that died ealier on so, it can be assumed that the Palestinians were called Palestinians from when the territory was named Palaestina by the Romans.<snip>
In the 20th century up until the declaration of Independence by the State of Israel, the Jews were called "Palestinians", the Arabs refused to be called that.
Very few Jews "moved north" the vast majority of Jews converted to Christianity by the end of the 4th century, when Christianity became the state religion of Rome, and subsequently, those few that did not converted to Islam were forced to convert when Caliph al-Hakim's conversion edict was issued in 1012.
Quit lying, the Palestinians calling themselves Palestinians when the province was renamed Palaestina, by the Romans. The Hasbara tool box you use is dated. This bullshit that the Palestinians did not exist until Arafat is an old bit of Zionist propaganda. Only brainwashed morons believe that crap. It is do easily debunked. Why continue with the bullshit?
There are texts documenting this including the De martyribus Palestinae (the Palestinian Martyrs) written in the 4th century.
Martiri palestinesi nell’Occidente latino. I casi della Passio Theodosiae virginis (BHL 8090) e della Passio Romani monachi (BHL 7298)
Later in the early 20th century the Palestinians were still calling themselves Palestinians. Besides the Palestinian newspaper, established by a Palestinian Christian,
View attachment 132367
the Palestinian Delegation in London corresponded with the British Colonial office as the people of Palestine. The Jews called themselves Zionists in the same correspondence.
PALESTINE.
CORRESPONDENCE
WITH THE
PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
AND THE
ZIONIST ORGANISATION.
".......Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable.
If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration."
UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)
I think that Israel wouldn't mind having that territory however, in reality, I don't think it possible...
I also don't believe that the Israel would have many issues in expanding, as they are currently doing, into areas that are not theirs... For example, I am quite certain that Israel would happily incorporate Gaza into the State of Israel, for "security" reasons or otherwise...
Gaza, Judea and Samaria are NOT "Greater Israel", they are disputed territories still in need of resolution.
In order to make a claim that Israel is expansionist, you have to provide evidence that they intend to expand beyond the areas of dispute and into another State's sovereign territory.
So far, you have failed to do so.
Gaza is a "disputed" area? Seriously?
How about Golan Heights? Israel holding territory of another country, incorporating it into Israel, with no sign of returning it to the sovereign country, that is expansionism, and one that YOU agreed with!
Sorry, having an opinion different to you in not a fail is it... It's just an opinion... Of which both you and I are allowed...
Concerning the Golan Heights, Humanity, please read post #41 on this thread and tell us how you would deal with a situation like that.
I am very aware of the geography of the region...
Can I ask you, IF Golan Heights is for "security", in effect a 'buffer zone' why has Israel annexed the region? Introducing 'Golan Heights Law' which, in effect, brings Golan Heights under 'Israeli Law'...
If, as I read more times than I care to remember, it is for 'Security'... Why is it not under UN control?
Annexing Golan Heights is it not the first step to expansion of Israel? Surely, now that Golan Heights is considered Israel, at least BY Israel, isn't there a need for a further 'security buffer zone'?
And, I might suggest that Syria is rather occupied with their own issues without 'worrying' about Israel!
Israel captured the Golan Heights in 1967. That was 50 years ago. If it was only the first step in Israel's expansionist plans, why hasn't Israel pushed further into Syria since then? Fifty years is a very long time. Let me explain this to you once again. Whoever holds that high ground, can shoot on the villages and farms below. The Arabs can't be trusted, so why should Israel give it up? The UN is incompetent and ineffective. UNIFIL did nothing for Israel in Lebanon, and Nasser ordered UN troops out of the Sinai in 1967. Besides, as you said, Syria is in dissaray and doesn't need the Golan. Who should Israel give it to--the genocidal Assad or the barbaric, evil ISIS? Niether choice is very good for Israel. Yes, Israel annexed the Golan in 1981. So what? There's no reason for Israel to give up that strategic plateau.
What happened to you? Yes, I know that there are some extremist Israeli's that want this Greater Israel that you speak of. Just like there are extremists on the other side that want the total destruction of Israel.Humanity , do you REALLY think that it is the plan of the State of Israel to 'conquer' and 'rule' from the Nile to the Euphrates? Seriously?
I think that Israel wouldn't mind having that territory however, in reality, I don't think it possible...
I also don't believe that the Israel would have many issues in expanding, as they are currently doing, into areas that are not theirs... For example, I am quite certain that Israel would happily incorporate Gaza into the State of Israel, for "security" reasons or otherwise...
And I get where you're further going, basically talking about the 'settlements'. I am not sure I agree with some of them either. At one time, I used to see them as a retaliation for attacks on Israel by some of the extremists on the Palestinian side, but yes, lately there seems to be no reason for some at all.
But why are you "quite certain that Israel would happily incorporate Gaza", when they left it back in 2005; making Israelis leave at the point of a gun, I might ad.
You said some very reasonable things in the 'two states' thread, but now here you are starting a sabre rattling thread. Why?
plenty of reasons for Israel to give up Golan...
No such thing as a Palestinian for the last 700 years of the Ottoman Empire.Actually "For the loss". For the win is the fact that it is documented that the Palestinians were called Palestinians at least as early as the fourth century AD. Of course, Palestine was a Christian land in 380 AD. The treatise below is about the Palestinian martyrs that died ealier on so, it can be assumed that the Palestinians were called Palestinians from when the territory was named Palaestina by the Romans.
"De martyribus Palestinae" (The Palestinian Martyrs)
A manuscript dated 411 AD by Eusebio of Cesarea, born in Caesarea Maritima, Palestine.
La tradizione manoscritta delle agiografie dei martiri palestinesi
In English:
(The manuscriptual tradition of the Palestinian martyrs)
Martiri palestinesi nell’Occidente latino. I casi della Passio Theodosiae virginis (BHL 8090) e della Passio Romani monachi (BHL 7298)
I don't see any mention about Arab Syrians.
Of course not, the indigenous people of Palestine did not become known as Arabs until they adopted the language of the Arabians. They were known as Palestinians, as the text confirms. Arab is a cultural and linguistic distinction, like Hispanic.
That's interesting, the Ottomans conquered Palestine in 1516. Not so hot with math I see. And, the Ottomans called the place Filistin, Turkish for Palestine.
Oh dear, a Manual for Palestinian Arabic written under Ottoman rule (1909). When will Ruddy stop making things up?
View attachment 132371
If there were no Palestinians during Ottoman rule, why would there be a Palestinian Arabic during Ottoman rule?
Interesting read, sounds still Arabian.
How do they call Jerusalem? Al-Quds or Baytul- Maqdis
How do they call Hebron? al-Khalil.
Rabid Arab RabbleWhat happened to you? Yes, I know that there are some extremist Israeli's that want this Greater Israel that you speak of. Just like there are extremists on the other side that want the total destruction of Israel.Humanity , do you REALLY think that it is the plan of the State of Israel to 'conquer' and 'rule' from the Nile to the Euphrates? Seriously?
I think that Israel wouldn't mind having that territory however, in reality, I don't think it possible...
I also don't believe that the Israel would have many issues in expanding, as they are currently doing, into areas that are not theirs... For example, I am quite certain that Israel would happily incorporate Gaza into the State of Israel, for "security" reasons or otherwise...
And I get where you're further going, basically talking about the 'settlements'. I am not sure I agree with some of them either. At one time, I used to see them as a retaliation for attacks on Israel by some of the extremists on the Palestinian side, but yes, lately there seems to be no reason for some at all.
But why are you "quite certain that Israel would happily incorporate Gaza", when they left it back in 2005; making Israelis leave at the point of a gun, I might ad.
You said some very reasonable things in the 'two states' thread, but now here you are starting a sabre rattling thread. Why?
Teddy, as you know, I am 'disliked' by some of the "sabre rattling" pro Palestinians for my belief that Israel exists and SHOULD exist... Why, there is one pro Palestinian who hates that, in his words, I "support" both sides! I have to say, I prefer to use the word "balanced" views... And will speak against Hamas and Israel with the same veracity if necessary!!
My OP was a question more than my "sabre rattling"
Yes, you are right of course, there is the settlement issue that could be discussed within this topic also.
Shusha has posted something that is VERY relevant to why I believe that expansionist ideas are strong within Israel... Namely the 'undefined' borders... Why are there no defined borders? When the state of Israel was formed, as far as I remember there were no borers mentioned or defined... Even today there are no defined borders...
Surly the formation of any state requires borders to be clearly defined...
You don't believe that Israel would be happy to annex Gaza?
Hilarious, since it is a historical fact that not only have Palestinians and Arabs have tried to expand Israel by attacking to destroy it several times, and by their leaders who have openly stated this.It is pretty clear that unless there is substantial resistance from the U.S. the Jews will implement a greater Israel and continue their subjugation of non-Jews they rule over. Even the pro-Israel U.S press is preparing Americans for the eventuality.
“I think we should no longer think of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, but Palestinian settlements in Israel,” Danny Danon, deputy defense minister, said in an interview.
Danon, recently elected to head the central committee of the Likud party, imagines an archipelago of Palestinian cities — Jenin, Nablus, Ramallah and Hebron — as Arab islands in an Israeli sea.
“The Jewish people are not settlers in the West Bank, but Israel will make the Palestinians settlers...The debate among annexationists is not whether to take greater control of the West Bank — it is how much to take.....Uri Ariel, the housing minister, has said he would start with Area C and continue to assert sovereignty in stages to eventually annex all of the West Bank.
Ariel said Palestinians who wish to become citizens would have to apply and meet criteria such as speaking Hebrew and pledging allegiance to Israel."
Israeli right says no to two states, yes to Greater Israel
Gaza, Judea and Samaria are NOT "Greater Israel", they are disputed territories still in need of resolution.
In order to make a claim that Israel is expansionist, you have to provide evidence that they intend to expand beyond the areas of dispute and into another State's sovereign territory.
So far, you have failed to do so.
Gaza is a "disputed" area? Seriously?
How about Golan Heights? Israel holding territory of another country, incorporating it into Israel, with no sign of returning it to the sovereign country, that is expansionism, and one that YOU agreed with!
Sorry, having an opinion different to you in not a fail is it... It's just an opinion... Of which both you and I are allowed...
Concerning the Golan Heights, Humanity, please read post #41 on this thread and tell us how you would deal with a situation like that.
I am very aware of the geography of the region...
Can I ask you, IF Golan Heights is for "security", in effect a 'buffer zone' why has Israel annexed the region? Introducing 'Golan Heights Law' which, in effect, brings Golan Heights under 'Israeli Law'...
If, as I read more times than I care to remember, it is for 'Security'... Why is it not under UN control?
Annexing Golan Heights is it not the first step to expansion of Israel? Surely, now that Golan Heights is considered Israel, at least BY Israel, isn't there a need for a further 'security buffer zone'?
And, I might suggest that Syria is rather occupied with their own issues without 'worrying' about Israel!
Israel captured the Golan Heights in 1967. That was 50 years ago. If it was only the first step in Israel's expansionist plans, why hasn't Israel pushed further into Syria since then? Fifty years is a very long time. Let me explain this to you once again. Whoever holds that high ground, can shoot on the villages and farms below. The Arabs can't be trusted, so why should Israel give it up? The UN is incompetent and ineffective. UNIFIL did nothing for Israel in Lebanon, and Nasser ordered UN troops out of the Sinai in 1967. Besides, as you said, Syria is in dissaray and doesn't need the Golan. Who should Israel give it to--the genocidal Assad or the barbaric, evil ISIS? Niether choice is very good for Israel. Yes, Israel annexed the Golan in 1981. So what? There's no reason for Israel to give up that strategic plateau.
Sorry, there are plenty of reasons for Israel to give up Golan...
In the same way Germany had to give up Poland!
Israel annexed Golan... So what??? Are you serious? Funny how it's ok for Israel....
Hilarious, since it is a historical fact that not only have Palestinians and Arabs have tried to expand Israel by attacking to destroy it several times, and by their leaders who have openly stated this.It is pretty clear that unless there is substantial resistance from the U.S. the Jews will implement a greater Israel and continue their subjugation of non-Jews they rule over. Even the pro-Israel U.S press is preparing Americans for the eventuality.
“I think we should no longer think of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, but Palestinian settlements in Israel,” Danny Danon, deputy defense minister, said in an interview.
Danon, recently elected to head the central committee of the Likud party, imagines an archipelago of Palestinian cities — Jenin, Nablus, Ramallah and Hebron — as Arab islands in an Israeli sea.
“The Jewish people are not settlers in the West Bank, but Israel will make the Palestinians settlers...The debate among annexationists is not whether to take greater control of the West Bank — it is how much to take.....Uri Ariel, the housing minister, has said he would start with Area C and continue to assert sovereignty in stages to eventually annex all of the West Bank.
Ariel said Palestinians who wish to become citizens would have to apply and meet criteria such as speaking Hebrew and pledging allegiance to Israel."
Israeli right says no to two states, yes to Greater Israel
1909, dumbass! Try again. Ottomans did not recognize a Palestine or Pslestinian.No such thing as a Palestinian for the last 700 years of the Ottoman Empire.Actually "For the loss". For the win is the fact that it is documented that the Palestinians were called Palestinians at least as early as the fourth century AD. Of course, Palestine was a Christian land in 380 AD. The treatise below is about the Palestinian martyrs that died ealier on so, it can be assumed that the Palestinians were called Palestinians from when the territory was named Palaestina by the Romans.
"De martyribus Palestinae" (The Palestinian Martyrs)
A manuscript dated 411 AD by Eusebio of Cesarea, born in Caesarea Maritima, Palestine.
La tradizione manoscritta delle agiografie dei martiri palestinesi
In English:
(The manuscriptual tradition of the Palestinian martyrs)
Martiri palestinesi nell’Occidente latino. I casi della Passio Theodosiae virginis (BHL 8090) e della Passio Romani monachi (BHL 7298)
I don't see any mention about Arab Syrians.
Of course not, the indigenous people of Palestine did not become known as Arabs until they adopted the language of the Arabians. They were known as Palestinians, as the text confirms. Arab is a cultural and linguistic distinction, like Hispanic.
That's interesting, the Ottomans conquered Palestine in 1516. Not so hot with math I see. And, the Ottomans called the place Filistin, Turkish for Palestine.
Oh dear, a Manual for Palestinian Arabic written under Ottoman rule (1909). When will Ruddy stop making things up?
View attachment 132371
If there were no Palestinians during Ottoman rule, why would there be a Palestinian Arabic during Ottoman rule?
You are more Trumplike than Trump.
You are more Trumplike than Trump.
Just another reminder that the majority of Antisemites are not Trump supporters.
Shusha has posted something that is VERY relevant to why I believe that expansionist ideas are strong within Israel... Namely the 'undefined' borders... Why are there no defined borders? When the state of Israel was formed, as far as I remember there were no borers mentioned or defined... Even today there are no defined borders...
Surly the formation of any state requires borders to be clearly defined...
Gaza is a "disputed" area? Seriously?
How about Golan Heights? Israel holding territory of another country, incorporating it into Israel, with no sign of returning it to the sovereign country, that is expansionism, and one that YOU agreed with!
Sorry, having an opinion different to you in not a fail is it... It's just an opinion... Of which both you and I are allowed...
Concerning the Golan Heights, Humanity, please read post #41 on this thread and tell us how you would deal with a situation like that.
I am very aware of the geography of the region...
Can I ask you, IF Golan Heights is for "security", in effect a 'buffer zone' why has Israel annexed the region? Introducing 'Golan Heights Law' which, in effect, brings Golan Heights under 'Israeli Law'...
If, as I read more times than I care to remember, it is for 'Security'... Why is it not under UN control?
Annexing Golan Heights is it not the first step to expansion of Israel? Surely, now that Golan Heights is considered Israel, at least BY Israel, isn't there a need for a further 'security buffer zone'?
And, I might suggest that Syria is rather occupied with their own issues without 'worrying' about Israel!
Israel captured the Golan Heights in 1967. That was 50 years ago. If it was only the first step in Israel's expansionist plans, why hasn't Israel pushed further into Syria since then? Fifty years is a very long time. Let me explain this to you once again. Whoever holds that high ground, can shoot on the villages and farms below. The Arabs can't be trusted, so why should Israel give it up? The UN is incompetent and ineffective. UNIFIL did nothing for Israel in Lebanon, and Nasser ordered UN troops out of the Sinai in 1967. Besides, as you said, Syria is in dissaray and doesn't need the Golan. Who should Israel give it to--the genocidal Assad or the barbaric, evil ISIS? Niether choice is very good for Israel. Yes, Israel annexed the Golan in 1981. So what? There's no reason for Israel to give up that strategic plateau.
Sorry, there are plenty of reasons for Israel to give up Golan...
In the same way Germany had to give up Poland!
Israel annexed Golan... So what??? Are you serious? Funny how it's ok for Israel....
Israel give up Golan and expose itself to Assad and ISIS? What exactly are you smoking...one of those e cigarettes with PCP In it?
The claim is flawed on two counts. First, international law simply does not function like that.
