Found an article. from Christian Science Monitor.
Well, the title is clearly intended to make Israel sound bad. Forgive me if I'm skeptical.
Later it says Israel annexed the Goaln Heights in 1981. That means the Golan Heights is part of Israel. And it's not West Bank or Gaza, so has nothing to do with roadmap agreement against settlements. Hell, even calling these "settlements" seems a bit biased. Why not call new houses in Tel Aviv settlements?
They're implying that Israel is giving the finger to the Arab world. By ... building some houses and living in them. I mean, I guess I understand many Arabs are opposed to live Jews, but is the Christian Science Monitor? sheesh
Yeah, that's it, the Syrians are peace-loving but the damn Jews just insist on conflict. Their way of insisting on conflict is to respond to peace negotations by building houses. I suppose if Israel were truly commited to peace, that money would have been redirected away from houses and into birth control. *cough*
Right. Jews thriving and flowering IS OFFENSIVE TO SYRIA.
Israel should make or considering making concessions to Syria about the West Bank why?
Israel isn't threatened by people who find new Jesish houses offensive?
And Israel remains averse to ceding land? Since when? Ever heard of Oslo? Israel has offered up land over and over. And if Israel was averse to ceding land, where would the borders be? Instead of little buffer zones, Israel would have kept all land it captured anywhere ever.
And Hamas says the Jews should all die. But news agencies shouldn't just be proxy Hamas spokesmen. Nor should they repeat lame criticism from anonymous sources that they're too craven to say themselves.
How come articles never read, "Anonymous Sharon supporters say the posture is well thought out and moral."?
Notice how a Professor from Tel Aviv is anti-Israel.
Dore Gold, an adviser to Sharon, says Israel is not interested in Assad's statements but rather in Syria acting against the Lebanese Hizbullah organization and shut down radical Palestinian groups in its territory.
Damn straight.
Anyhow, before I close I just want to point out: Why would Israel want to keep the Golan Heights away from Syria? Maybe cause they are a high place perfect for shelling part of Israel from. Combine that with the fact that Syria sponsers terrorism...
Messages (2)
i recall my grandfather saying that Syria *sold* the Golan to Israel.
and that was/is something the Syrian government denies.
my grandfather was head of the military wing responsible for the Golan. he and many others were put in jail by the Syrian government, i guess because they knew too much.
Anyway, a really nice interpretation of this is that the Syrian government sold the Golan, knowing how it helps Israel protect itself from terrorists that would otherwise be able to hit Israel from the hills in Golan.
Quick Google turns up info like:
> Who owns the Golan Heights?
>Two-thirds of the Golan Heights has been under Israeli control since 1967, when Israel seized the area during the Six-Day War. The remainder is under Syrian control. Following the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Israel returned another 5% of the land to Syria.
Do you have any meaningful sources or info about this *sold* thing? Any criticism of the standard view? Or are you just spreading myths?