Ed General Israel/Palestine discussion thread - Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mycroft

High Priest of Ed
Mycroft
Joined
Sep 10, 2003
Messages
20,501
Craig B said:
That won't do, I'm afraid. Here is our conversation on the topic.
Click to expand...

If you're talking about the Golan Heights, is it okay to point out that Israel captured it in a defensive war, and has been willing to trade it back for almost 50 years in exchange for a comprehensive peace with Syria like they have with Jordan and Egypt, and that it's Syria that's been refusing? Or are we only allowed to consider cherry-picked information that makes Israel look bad?

Craig B said:
Egyptian citizenship was revoked in the 1880s? Parts of Syria were annexed and cleared in 1948? Aye, right.
Click to expand...

See? That's why it's important to clarify your terms.

I did not say Egyptians lost their citizenship in the 1880s, and will ask you not to be purposefully obtuse.

Neither did I claim that parts of Syria were annexed in 1948, but interestingly Syria did capture and annex territory in that war. In fact, ethnic cleansing was the norm in that war, Jews were expelled from all Arab controlled territory. I think it's worth asking why that's not considered important information?


Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
 
Mycroft said:
I guess when Jews struggle for survival, they're supposed to not consider their own survival as a factor?
Click to expand...

I think the take away is that some folks don't like it when minorities, er, I mean Jews, er, I mean 'Zionists' get uppity. And that "never again" is a nice phrase about the holocaust... but heaven forfend if you actually take any concrete actions to make sure it never happens again. Why not try leaving the defence of Israel to the UN, or human rights lawyers?
 
Mycroft said:
If you're talking about the Golan Heights, is it okay to point out that Israel captured it in a defensive war, and has been willing to trade it back for almost 50 years in exchange for a comprehensive peace with Syria like they have with Jordan and Egypt, and that it's Syria that's been refusing? Or are we only allowed to consider cherry-picked information that makes Israel look bad?
Click to expand...
No. These circumstances might justify a military occupation of Golan, but not its annexation and settlement. That is not my view, but that of the U.S. Government too, which has abstained from recognising the annexation. There is currently afoot a plan to increase the number of settlers there by 100,000, now that there is no effective government in Syria capable of resisting it; which I have related in a previous post. The publicly expressed purpose of this is to render Syrian recovery of the area impossible in practice. I have related this fact in posts too.

I'm not cherry picking anything. It is this clearance and resettlement which is the activity of Zionism that inspires my aversion to that ideology. In that respect it resembles the land tenure system of the S African apartheid regime, which I was very active in opposing prior to its collapse.

Mycroft said:
See? That's why it's important to clarify your terms.

I will ask you not to be purposefully obtuse.
Click to expand...
I can't be intimidated by this tactic, so you may as well cease to employ it.
 
Last edited:
Craig B said:
No. These circumstances might justify a military occupation of Golan, but not its annexation and settlement. That is not my view, but that of the U.S. Government too, which has abstained from recognising the annexation. There is currently afoot a plan to increase the number of settlers there by 100,000, now that there is no effective government in Syria capable of resisting it; which I have related in a previous post. The publicly expressed purpose of this is to render Syrian recovery of the area impossible in practice. I have related this fact in posts too.
Click to expand...

Syria could have had that land back decades ago. I will not blame Israel for putting land to use that Syria continually refuses.
 
Ziggurat said:
Syria could have had that land back decades ago. I will not blame Israel for putting land to use that Syria continually refuses.
Click to expand...
That is of little moment. International law is clear. Wiki.
Construction of Israeli settlements began in the remainder of the territory held by Israel, which was under military administration until Israel passed the Golan Heights Law extending Israeli law and administration throughout the territory in 1981. This move was condemned by the United Nations Security Council in UN Resolution 497, which said that "the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void and without international legal effect." Israel states it has a right to retain the Golan, citing the text of UN Resolution 242, which calls for "safe and recognised boundaries free from threats or acts of force". However, the international community reject Israeli claims to title to the territory and regards it as sovereign Syrian territory.​
 
I gotta say, the Security Council resolution 497 gives me pause for thought. The UNSC is the only UN body that I take seriously (because of its membership, more than its affiliation with the UN).
 
Ziggurat said:
Syria could have had that land back decades ago. I will not blame Israel for putting land to use that Syria continually refuses.
Click to expand...
Syria could never have had that land back because Israel did not conquer it to give it away. Israel conquered it to fill out the territory of Israel as set out after the Balfour Declaration. Having been emptied of its original inhabitants it is to be filled with settlers, as was always the intention. It's just taken a lot longer than expected.

You keep seeing the progress of this project as caused by a series of Arab actions which coincidentally steered it along the original plan. At every step you'll have your "The Arabs did this" or "The Arabs didn't do that" argument as laid out for your convenience on some well-meaning web-site, and at every step the Zionists defend there way out of Europe into some more of somebody else's property.

It beggars belief that Assad the Elder would have turned down the Golan Heights, the recovery of which would have brought him a hero status he gravely lacked. But you believe that he did. As I may have mentioned before, Zionism rots the mind.
 
Here's the thing about Israel: Its founders remembered what it was like to be an "accepted minority" in Europe. It ended in Crematoria and gas chambers, and after millennia of persecution, they decided that they could never trust a majority ever again, and they had to form their own nation.
 
NWO Sentryman said:
Here's the thing about Israel: Its founders remembered what it was like to be an "accepted minority" in Europe. It ended in Crematoria and gas chambers, and after millennia of persecution, they decided that they could never trust a majority ever again, and they had to form their own nation.
Click to expand...

No, that's not just it. That's for instance what the UK Labour MP suggested in the other thread, that idea about having a safe nation. Zionism is the idea that this nation must be taken, specifically, from the Palestinians - even at the expense of other desirable properties such as safety.
 
Ziggurat said:
And do you think Syria has been following international law? Or do only violations by Israel matter?
Click to expand...
Stop this ridiculous misdirection. What are you on about? Either you approve the depopulation and settlement of Golan, or you do not. Say which.

That Syria has collapsed and Assad is a tyrant is neither here nor there. Violations of humanity by Syria are numerous. If I denounce them, as I do, am I a racist?

So tell me if you approve the Israeli annexation of Syrian territory and displacement of 130,000 Syrians. Yes or no. If Some Muslim tyrant did that I would denounce him. Who says only Israeli violations matter? Do you deplore such violations or not, as I do those of Assad?
 
Last edited:
Giz said:
I think the take away is that some folks don't like it when minorities, er, I mean Jews, er, I mean 'Zionists' get uppity. And that "never again" is a nice phrase about the holocaust... but heaven forfend if you actually take any concrete actions to make sure it never happens again. Why not try leaving the defence of Israel to the UN, or human rights lawyers?
Click to expand...
The Zionists who decided, 120 years ago, to go and steal somebody else's land for their own haven of racial purity and due respect for one's Community Leaders were not oppressed. They were not getting "uppity". They wore suits and ties, they were going to do the white man's thing and finally prove to everybody that they were indeed white.

The problem with this attempted colonisation is not the Jewishness of the people doing it, and it's ridiculous to suggest that it is. It's the doing of it that's the problem. All this whining about inherited victimisation and how hard done by the Israelis are by the intransigence and nastiness of the colonised is just bizarre.

"A century of conflict", people predicted, using the rhetorical century, and so far they've been proved right. And all the fault of the Palestinians for being there. And still being there, even after all the hints they've been given. So unfair.
 
caveman1917 said:
No, that's not just it. That's for instance what the UK Labour MP suggested in the other thread, that idea about having a safe nation. Zionism is the idea that this nation must be taken, specifically, from the Palestinians - even at the expense of other desirable properties such as safety.
Click to expand...

The problem is, the British Government promised the Jews and Arabs the same land in exchange for loyalty during WW1 and sat on the topic for 30 years, never to form a viable resolution. During that time, Jews fleeing the Nazi Regime were turned around, and the Mandate was perpetually on the brink of civil war. After 1945, the powder keg exploded and you had an SS Recruiting Sergeant rile up the Arab nations to finish the job Hitler started. After three rounds of "Drive the Jew Into The Sea!", Israel developed a kill-or-be-killed mentality, which isn't well understood by most westerners who have known only comfort for 70 years, and never knowing persecution and genocide within living memory. Where were the Jews supposed to go after 1945? There was no guarantee that another Holocaust couldn't happen again, America had the Ku Klux Klan. In other words, it was the least bad option for a lot of Jews. Jews have a LOT of precedents for what happened to them as minorities.
 
Last edited:
Mycroft said:
If you're talking about the Golan Heights, is it okay to point out that Israel captured it in a defensive war, and has been willing to trade it back for almost 50 years in exchange for a comprehensive peace with Syria like they have with Jordan and Egypt, and that it's Syria that's been refusing? Or are we only allowed to consider cherry-picked information that makes Israel look bad?
Click to expand...
What were Israel's demands in the proposed comprehensive peace treaty?
 
NWO Sentryman said:
The problem is, the British Government promised the Jews and Arabs the same land in exchange for loyalty during WW1 and sat on the topic for 30 years, never to form a viable resolution. During that time, Jews fleeing the Nazi Regime were turned around, and the Mandate was perpetually on the brink of civil war. After 1945, the powder keg exploded and you had an SS Recruiting Sergeant rile up the Arab nations to finish the job Hitler started. Where were the Jews supposed to go after 1945? There was no guarantee that another Holocaust couldn't happen again, America had the Ku Klux Klan. In other words, it was the least bad option for a lot of Jews.
Click to expand...
The problem is that Zionists decided to colonise Palestine therefore creating the dispute over who got to have it - the natives or the colonisers. Without the Zionist project there would have been no problem.

That cack about Haj Amin is just cack. Demonisation. The Arabs didn't go to war in 1948 to kill all the Jews, they went into it to prevent the creation of a Jewish State for Jews over their heads. They were right to fear what the consequences would be - dispossession and exile on a mass, if not total, scale.

The early colonists were mostly Russian and got there decades before Hitler arrived on the scene, let alone got his anti-semitic programme under way. One which, by the way, did not turn genocidal at the prompting of Haj Amin. Just thought I'd better point that out, a different opinion having been expressed recently.

I think it's fair to say you don't really know anything about the Zionist story, so I'll get a bit lectural. To set the stage : in 19th Century Europe Jewish life became normalised in Europe, starting with the French Revolution and the emancipation of French Jews and then the opening of the Italian ghettoes and it was general progress from there. Russia lagged, of course, but that's Russia for you, and Russian anti-semitism was regarded as evidence of its semi-barbarism. By the 1890's this process had produced twin evils, in many conservative Ashkenazi minds, of miscegenation and a decline in deference to the proper Community Leaders.

Zionism is meant to be a counter to that. In their own country, not mixing with anybody else, Jews will rarely marry out, and they will rediscover their duty to their proper Community Leaders who bear the grave responsibility of running the country.

It was supposed to be easier than this.
 
NWO Sentryman said:
The problem is, the British Government promised the Jews and Arabs the same land in exchange for loyalty ...
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, what Jews were the British trying to buy the loyalty of? Surely not British Jews, who were loyal citizens without question. And not the loyalty of most Palestinian Jews, who were anti-zionist. The Zionist Jews in Palestine could contribute nothing to the British cause, and had they tried would have been crushed by the Turks. As it was, Russian Jews were under suspicion and observation for being Russian.

The Balfour Declaration and all the trouble it brought right next to the Suez Canal, lifeline of Empire, makes not the slightest sense in thoe terms.
 
You omit the Dreyfus Affair as well as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and how the Holocaust permanently destroyed Jewish trust of Europe. Imagine being born as an "accepted minority" and then being marched into gas chambers or watching your family get used as biological weapons test subjects. Then you flee to Israel, the last hope of the European Jews after an industrial scale extinction attempt. Unfortunately, the British never set up a proper resolution between the Jews and the Arabs and the whole region is a powder keg waiting to go off. Then a former Waffen-SS recruiting Sergeant (I am NOT making this up) comes along, smoking a cigar, lugging around petrol and plastic explosives, urging that the jews, who fled the most evil regime in human history, be put to the sword, down to the last. It's easy typing on a computer in a comfortable western atmosphere, never having relatives who had been reduced to a number on their right arm, condemning those who never wanted that to happen again. It's easy to say "Give Europe another chance!" when you never had to go through that. If you want an understanding of life in the 1930s, read Yitzhak Rabin's memoirs, which discussed how the Mandate was on the brink of civil war.

So Capeldodger, what was going to happen to the Jews when the Arabs, hopped up on Nazi Propaganda, would walk victorious into Jerusalem and Tel Aviv? I'll give you a couple of hints: Saddam Hussein, The Assads.
 
Last edited:
Craig B said:
Stop this ridiculous misdirection. What are you on about?
Click to expand...

I think you're engaged in a double standard.

Either you approve the depopulation and settlement of Golan, or you do not. Say which.
Click to expand...

I think it doesn't bother me enough to condemn Israel for, given the circumstances in which it's happening.

That Syria has collapsed and Assad is a tyrant is neither here nor there.
Click to expand...

Syria's failure to make peace with Israel predates not only the current troubles, but Assad's entire rule.

Violations of humanity by Syria are numerous. If I denounce them, as I do, am I a racist?
Click to expand...

You say you denounce them, and yet, they play no apparent role in your consideration of events in the Golan Heights. I do not find your claim credible.
 
CapelDodger said:
Without the Zionist project there would have been no problem.
Click to expand...

No. Without the Jews, there just would have been different problems. The Arabs would simply have fought each other instead, as they do everywhere else.
 
CapelDodger said:
Do you excuse them by tu quoque? Why do you always want to talk about other places?
Click to expand...

Given that the Golan Heights is supposedly part of Syria, and that Syria's refusal to make peace with Israel is directly related to Israel's policy there, that's not really some other place.
 
caveman1917 said:
No, that's not just it. That's for instance what the UK Labour MP suggested in the other thread, that idea about having a safe nation.]/quote]
As I've mentioned, Zionism was not, and so is not, since it hasn't changed at any point, about feeling physically threatened. What they feared was assimilation through not being differentiated from any other citizen. Herzl himself said that political liberation of the Jews could not be reversed - proven wrong much later, tragically, but evidence of thinking at the time. Since it would not be reversed in the European countries Jews would be assimilated into, another country - a Jewish country - would be required. Hence Zionism.

Zionism is the idea that this nation must be taken, specifically, from the Palestinians - even at the expense of other desirable properties such as safety.
Click to expand...
It quickly became that, given that a nation needs national symbols and a national mythos and for Jews that had to mean the Promised Land. This idea had to be sold, and it was very fringe at first, and you just couldn't do that with pictures of the Argentinian pampas. You need things like "Promised Land", what a gift, writes itself. "A land without a people for a people without a land", lots of poetic licence in that one but it does the job.

Once that inevitablity had been arrived at the Palestinians were slated for exodus. Away into the general mass of the Arab race, faceless, de-personalised, bereft of the finer feelings needed for a sense of place, even the place of their families' graves. Unlike Jews, who had an overwhelming sense of place even for places they'd never seen. These people were just weird.

It's unfortunate that Zionism has appealed so much to Old Testament Christians, such as Balfour, Loyd George and Southern Baptists. Absent that, and the ever-present Zionist claim to have The Jewish Vote in their gift, we'd not be talking about this.

We'd still be talking about the Russians, though. That one never goes away.
Click to expand...
 
So Capel, what were Jews supposed to do after being fed into crematoria? Be willing to trust Europe again after they willingly looked the other way as cattle cars were filled beyond capacity? As priceless heirlooms and gold fillings were melted down to fund the Nazi war effort.
 
CapelDodger said:
It beggars belief that Assad the Elder would have turned down the Golan Heights, the recovery of which would have brought him a hero status he gravely lacked.
Click to expand...

Yeah, no. Sadat got back the Sinai, and what was his thanks for it? His own assassination. It doesn't beggar belief that Assad the Elder would choose a different path, it's pretty much to be expected.
 
Ziggurat said:
Given that the Golan Heights is supposedly part of Syria, and that Syria's refusal to make peace with Israel is directly related to Israel's policy there, that's not really some other place.
Click to expand...
You spoke of the Syrian governments actions in Syria, which is another place.

The Golan Heights are only "supposedly" part of Syria because of the Sykes-Picot border, and that arrangement is not one Israel has ever accepted. Israel famously creates facts on the ground; a fact on paper is that the World Zionist Organisation produced a map of their projected homeland which included the Golan Heights, and indeed the whole Jordan watershed. When the Sykes-Picot deal came out Weizmann and the WZO went ballistic, tearing of their clothing and screeching "anti-semitism!" as is their wont.

Israel conquered this territory and is colonising it because Israel regards it as part of its territory. It did not "defend" its way into it ("conquered in a defensive war", one has to wonder at the damage Zionism can do to synapses) in order to give it back. Facts on the ground. And the fact is they were just early to the post-Sykes-Picot world. (As was I, of course.)
 
Capel, you are avoiding my question: When Assimilation was inherently linked to being fed into crematoria, what were the Jews supposed to do next when they could no longer trust European Society as a whole?
 
Ziggurat said:
Yeah, no. Sadat got back the Sinai, and what was his thanks for it? His own assassination. It doesn't beggar belief that Assad the Elder would choose a different path, it's pretty much to be expected.
Click to expand...
Assad's position wasn't remotely similar. Sadat's assassination wasn't down to the deal with Israel - not everything is always about Israel - but an incident in a long-running Egyptian story. These things happen, like having your prime minister assassinated by a religious fanatic precisely and exactly because he did a peace deal. Can happen in any family.

Assad had no Muslim Brotherhood problem that he couldn't shell away. The problems he did have, to the extent that his regime couldn't eliminate them, were to do with failure against Israel. Regaining the Golan Heights would have been his Crimea moment.

What were the Israeli demands in the proposed comprehensive peace treaty with Syria? You know about this subject : enlighten us.
 
Ziggurat said:
No. Without the Jews, there just would have been different problems. The Arabs would simply have fought each other instead, as they do everywhere else.
Click to expand...

Just for my own edification what is the equivalent of anti-Semitism for Arabs? Is there such a word?
 
NWO Sentryman said:
You omit the Dreyfus Affair
Click to expand...
I'm not astonished you brought it up. It's the example always given as evidence that this sort of thing was going on all the time.

The Dreyfus affair resulted in the exoneration of Dreyfuss, but more importantly an uproar erupted across Europe against the French Government and officer class, and a classic work - J'Accuse - laid out the modern European position. One in which this sort of behaviour was no longer acceptable.

The French officer class which lay behind this was recognised in France as being utterly anachronistic, and they may have been right two or three generations before that "blame the Jew" would work, but they were those generations behind. Not remotely representative of the Jewish condition in Europe.

I know that's not the interpretation you've been familiarised with but you'll see that it's an entirely valid one. It is, in fact, a commonly held one by people who consider history in the large rather than by snippets pre-interpreted for the reader.

... as well as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and how the Holocaust permanently destroyed Jewish trust of Europe.
Click to expand...
120 years ago was the 1890's, when Hitler was a child. Nobody paid any attention to the Protocols - it was a laughable Russian production, originally targeted against Freemasons - but the World Zionist Orgaisation promoted itself as being the Elders, the co-ordinating body, because yes, The Jews do all work together, they said, and owe allegiance to them. They could provide the Jewish Vote or keep the Ukrainian grain harvest out of German hands, whatever was desired. If they were granted Israel.

"Jewish trust in Europe ..." : you do realise there are still Jews in Europe? And they don't all trust and/or distrust as a body?

Imagine being born as an "accepted minority" and then being marched into gas chambers or watching your family get used as biological weapons test subjects.
Click to expand...
Israel has nothing to do with the Holocaust. The driving of the Palestinians out of Palestine so that a bunch of racist Europeans could have it for themselves was not a response to the Holocaust. It was a response to having Palestinians where the Zionists didn't want them - in their country.

A Jewish National Home in Austria after WW2 is soemthing I could get behind. Clear out the remaining Austrians and let in Europe's Jews. An injustice to some Austrians but not nearly enough to care about, and just the thing for the rest of them.

Sadly doing this sort of thing to white people is a step too far. Go figure.

Then you flee to Israel, the last hope of the European Jews after an industrial scale extinction attempt.
Click to expand...
There are still Jews in Europe, and more Holocaust survivors went to the US than to Israel. Being a Holocaust survivor does not make one a Zionist, for all the arrogant claims made otherwise. They've actually been badly served in Israel, late-convert Zionists, not true Zionists. They wouldn't have been victimised if they'd gone to Israel is a fairly common attitude.

The Holocaust is damned useful to Zionists, because it conceals the fact that they started this thing long before and without any perceived threat. They have taken Palestine and brutalised the inhabitants they haven't ejected or killed because they wanted it and, as white people, felt entitled to what coloured people had.

So Capeldodger, what was going to happen to the Jews when the Arabs, hopped up on Nazi Propaganda, would walk victorious into Jerusalem and Tel Aviv? I'll give you a couple of hints: Saddam Hussein, The Assads.
Click to expand...
Perhaps what happened to the Palestinians when the Israelis marched in. That would have been no more an injustice, and arguably less given that a significant number of the Zionists were first-generation immigrants.

You mean to imply, I think, that the Arabs are, and perhaps have always been, motiveted by the desire to kill Jews. The truth of the matter is that until the Zionists went to Palestine and started identifying Jews with Europeans there was no Arab-Jewish conflict. They lived together all through the Middle East, because ther were no Christians to keep the Jews out. (Nobody can live with Christians.) The Zionists destroyed that heritage, and just don't care. Never did. Their self-absorption is epic.
 
NWO Sentryman said:
Capel, you are avoiding my question: When Assimilation was inherently linked to being fed into crematoria, what were the Jews supposed to do next when they could no longer trust European Society as a whole?
Click to expand...
What all the Jews who didn't go to Palestine did.

The Zionist project was launched 120 years ago and is the cause of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and all the related suffering, past and future and draggingly present. It did not prevent the Holocaust and did not save the remaining Jews after the Holocaust. Israel's war to conquer Palestine and expel the population was decades in the planning and preparation, before the Nazi Party existed. It was a uniquely awful event, it was not predicted by anybody, and even in 1945 people found the enormity of it hard to accept. It was not inevitable, and European cultures do not always end up killing all the Jews they can reach at some point.

Do not conflate the Holocaust with the Zionist project to colonise Israel as a haven of racial purity and due deference to one's Community Leaders. It has no redeeming features, unless you think it important that Jews and gentiles not mingle and marry and mongrelise. Which you surely don't.
 
CapelDodger, I'm not going to engage in Spaghetti Posting,

1. Carving a Jewish State out of Austria would just be painting a huge bullseye on it.

2. You are disturbingly gleeful about the idea of Arab armies, motivated by Nazism, exterminating every Israel man woman and child. FFS they had a Nazi recruiting sergeant as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.

3. I SERIOUSLY doubt that when Jewish and Arab Nationalism were developing, that there was some multicultural paradise in the region before WW1. Especially when the Ottoman Empire was in the final stages of collapse

4. There's a lot less Jews living in Europe than Israel. I wonder why that is...

5. You still haven't addressed my point. How did the jews go from assimilation to gas chambers in "progressive" europe?
 
Last edited:
The way Capel dodges the whole issue of European Anti Semitism is amusing.

What is also amusing is that his whole shtick is being a ultra cynical extreme realist,but all of a sudden he gets moral over the Israeli-Palestine issue. Look,it does not really matter who was right or wrong back in 1948. You have Five Million Jews in Israel,they have a very good Military, and they don't want to go anywhere. The Anti Zionist horse left the stable a long time ago.
And,anyway,there are many issues in the Middle East that are not a direct result of the Israeli Palestinian issue. You would have seen the rise of A Fundy Islamic movement in reaction to the modern world anyway.
One of the reasons I no longer consider myself a "Progressive"is because the "Progressives" have turned on Israel so violently. And I by no means approve of all Israeli Policy.
 
And, frankly,I am begin to detect a good whiff of "Left WIng Anti Semitism" in this thread, which of course, a lot people on the left denies to exist.
And I really amused by somebody who defends Putin on the grounds of cold realpolitik,but gets all emotional and on a moral high horse where Israel is concerned.
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
And, frankly,I am begin to detect a good whiff of "Left WIng Anti Semitism" in this thread
Click to expand...

A whiff? Seriously? Come on, your fascist friends at least try to base it on specific statements rather than a vague appeal to their olfactory sense.
 
CapelDodger said:
Syria could never have had that land back because Israel did not conquer it to give it away.
Click to expand...
Syria went to war with Israel. Why should they be allowed to keep militarily advantageous positions on the Syria-Israeli border after that?

I think it's a fundamental principle of warfare that, if a defender wins a war against the aggressor, they have every right to redraw the border in a way that benefits them and reduces the effectiveness of such aggression in the future. Syria's lucky that all they lost was the Golan.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom