Angry journalists, who initially boycotted the session, describe subcommittee's claims to be part of a 'witch hunt,' and slam Israel's 'authoritarian' efforts to clamp down on the media.14:27 09.02.16 | 2 comments
Yes, of course you're right. Even Iraq attacked Israel with Scuds, not to mention Lebanon and the attempts of Hamas. But why give a platform to the enemy (and Syria would remain as such even after Israel received a piece of paper from it)? On this platform, Syria could station various types of weaponry. In addition, the Golan is a BEAUTIFUL area that Syria LOST as a result of its aggression on Israel. It has been built up by Israel in the past 40 years. It is a strategic asset in what way, you ask? It contains resources, first and foremost (water, forests, territory that was only part of Syria for a VERY short time). Lastly, if Israel were to surrender the Golan, it would only embolden the enemies of Israel even more and demand more for "peace." Thus, it would be the height of folly to surrender territory paid for in blood and developed by the sweat and tears of generations.