Morch

Labour is well funded by the Jewish lobby, as are many western political parties, obviously with the desired outcome of squashing any criticism and bribing pro-Israel policies.

I do find it odd though, antisemitism is a bit overzealous, but in our PC world criticising anybody is now a hate crime. What I don't get is how criticising a countries actions or foreign policy is also regarded as such, the stand out being Israel.

"To silence criticism is to silence freedom" - US philosopher Sidney Hook.

Sooo....not bothering with "Israeli" or even "Zionist" now? It's the "Jewish lobby", with an out reach that covers "many western political parties".

Not a whiff of antisemitism here, obviously. Just the truth as read in and paraphrased from them Protocols.

You would have thought the 'Jewish lobby' would have got better value for money considering Labour fund a 'charity' called Interpal (like interflora but say it with knives rather than say it with flowers). Interpal are involved in direct incitement to attack Israelis with knives. Jeremy Corbyn is prominently pictured on their literature. So the Labour knowingly donates money to a charity that incites violence against Jews. Nothing antisemitic to see here please move on.

http://hurryupharry.org/2016/04/28/interpal-joins-labours-storm/

I guess the money was really paid to Interpal by Zionists posing as Labour Party members just to discredit Jeremy Corbyn.

Poor attempt at deflection with a bogus story about a British Charity Commission approved organization and this from a man who constantly urges us to stay on topic.

All part of the Israeli lobby smear campaign that attacked Ken Livingstone in the OP, and now apparently Jeremy Corbyn too, as was suspected as the real target all along.

Jump up and down, make enough noise, throw enough mud and the Israeli lobby hopes some of it will stick enough to distract readers from the great Israeli hoax: they play the victim when they are in fact the aggressor.

The one thing Israel cannot defeat militarily is the truth. The whole world is watching this time via the international and social media.

So a documented story is "bogus", while your conspiracy theory is the truth.

Complaining about Labour politicians being victims of a smear campaign, whinging about alleged use of victim card.

It's a wonder it took "just 70 posts for the usual slogans to appear, even when they are not even on topic. No, that you postulate an imaginary campaign does not make it so.

Btw, seems agitated posters tend to confuse their definitions. Now it isn't even the usual "Zionist Hoax" but an all encompassing "Israeli hoax". Just a step away from Rancid, a few posts up the topic. Well done.

Dexterm wrote..

Plenty of hot air and obfuscation as usual

Did the Haavara Agreement aka "transfer agreement" between Nazi Germany and the Zionist Federation of Germany signed on 25 August 1933. help/aid/assist/facilitate/support the migration of Jews into Palestine?

Straight yes or no? (but perhaps that's too much to ask of you)

That is the point that Ken Livingstone was making, mind readers notwithstanding.

I don't believe for one minute that the racist monster Hitler was a Zionist, any more than the Zionist Federation of Germany were Nazis. But they were both prepared to sup with their own personal devils to achieve their aims.

Morch replied..

As expected.

Confirming previous a observation, both yourself and Livingstone seem to favor a simplified approach to historical detail - one that focuses on tags, headlines and impressions. A simple yes or no over complicated explanation. But do go on berating the "appalling scholarship" of others. The issue, by the way, was the subject of a previous topic on TVF, may want to look it up. Or just read one of the latest commentaries, non of them a simple yes or no.

And on with the demagoguery - whinging about "mind readers", while offering personal interpretations of the same text. Ken Livingstone said what he said, and all your spins are simply poor attempts at damage control.

No mind reading involved at all. No personal interpretations. Ken Livingstone said it himself: "Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-anti-semitism-row-full-transcript-of-ken-livingstones-interviews-a7005311.html

What other policies did Hitler have at the time that supported Zionism other than the Haavara (transfer) Agreement? Pray do tell us.

You and the Israeli lobby have clearly and deliberately misinterpreted what he said just to stir up a phony anti Semitism witch hunt.

You also display a poor understanding of the English language.

eg. "Google is supporting the demise of genuine research skills."

does not mean Google approves of the demise of genuine research skills; it simply means de facto that is what is happening with such an easy app.

Similarly, Livingstone clearly stated [Hitler's actions] were supporting Zionism even if it was an unintended or completely indifferent consequence.

Lets see:

Only your interpretation of Livingstone's statement is valid, other are "mind reading".

Sources critical of Livingstone's statements are dismissed as exhibiting "appalling scholarship" or bias. Quoting Galloway and selective Wikipedia bits are alright.

Ken Livinsgstone's on record history of antisemitic statements and associations is ignored, as if the current incident was an isolated case.

Whinging about pedantry is alright if directed one way, not acceptable otherwise.

Yep, as expected.

Labour is well funded by the Jewish lobby, as are many western political parties, obviously with the desired outcome of squashing any criticism and bribing pro-Israel policies.

I do find it odd though, antisemitism is a bit overzealous, but in our PC world criticising anybody is now a hate crime. What I don't get is how criticising a countries actions or foreign policy is also regarded as such, the stand out being Israel.

"To silence criticism is to silence freedom" - US philosopher Sidney Hook.

Sooo....not bothering with "Israeli" or even "Zionist" now? It's the "Jewish lobby", with an out reach that covers "many western political parties".

Not a whiff of antisemitism here, obviously. Just the truth as read in and paraphrased from them Protocols.

How ignorant of a statement.

israel is simply blocking ALL Palestinian efforts to do anything.

Now mr. gary, who really is the terrorist remains to be seen.

Palestinians themselves view their leadership(s) as self serving and fundamentally corrupt. Obviously, they are ignorant and you know better.

Abbas's son was named in the latest Panama Papers scandal. Abbas himself controls, without oversight, substantial funds donated for the Palestinian's welfare. Khaled Mashaal, Hamas leader, leads a luxurious lifestyle while holding control of Hamas funds and assets abroad. The same, with variations and scope, applies to many others.

The Palestinians could do better, Israel's restrictive policies and ongoing occupation nonwithstanding,

Posters aiming at one-sided representations (and goes for the post you replied to as well) are way off-mark. Biden's speech, which acknowledges issues on both sides, is more to the point.

This is what Ken Livingstone actually said about Hitler..

"Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism – this before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-anti-semitism-row-full-transcript-of-ken-livingstones-interviews-a7005311.html

He did not say Hitler was a Zionist, as in fully paid up member. He implies that Hitler's actions were "supporting Zionism", as indeed they were.

"The Haavara Agreement (Hebrew: הסכם העברה Translit.: heskem haavara Translated: "transfer agreement") was an agreement between Nazi Germany and Zionist German Jews signed on 25 August 1933. The agreement was finalized after three months of talks by the Zionist Federation of Germany, the Anglo-Palestine Bank (under the directive of the Jewish Agency) and the economic authorities of Nazi Germany. The agreement was designed to help facilitate the emigration of German Jews to Palestine."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement

Ken regrets mentioning Hitler because of course the Israeli lobby have pounced upon and twisted his words, causing such a fuss. But what he said about Hitler's actions in the early 1930s were perfectly true; his collusion with the Zionist Federation of Germany in the transfer agreement did help German Jews to migrate to Palestine at the time.

There were a few links detailing all the inaccuracies with Livingstone's statement. Many others can be found, and (as usual) even the link your provide does not quite prove the claim, but posted to enhance such an impression.

Livingstone's statement is not much different than the posting tactic observed above. A soundbite which gives the impression of being factual, and which skips the complexities of things it alludes to.

The 1932 elections were not quite that clear cut an affair. Hitler's views on Jews and Zionism were aired on Mein Kampf, published prior to 1932. The early Nazi policies and dealings with elements of the Zionist movement in Germany were due to economic constraints. Asserting that as "supporting Zionism" is devoid of any integrity: Zionism in the sense of creating a prosperous Jewish state was not on the Nazi agenda.

1. Ken Livingstone direct quote: "He was supporting Zionism".

2. Dexterm interpretation: "He implies that Hitler's actions were "supporting Zionism"".

3. Dexterm making it "real": "what he said about Hitler's actions"

4. Obligatory spin: "the Israeli lobby have pounced upon and twisted his words"

5. Desired QED: Livingstone words being "perfectly true"

Livingstone said what he said. Damage control effort = fail. Altering Livingstone's statement while claiming others twist words is the usual dishonest fare.

Livingstone words being "perfectly true" is an exaggeration at best. But then, nothing out of the norm. And now for the predictable whinging: "nitpicking" (after applying same to Livingstone's words and criticism of), "besmirching" (as if that's not the essence of the above post), overt or hidden claims of "campaign".

Plenty of hot air and obfuscation as usual

Did the Haavara Agreement aka "transfer agreement" between Nazi Germany and the Zionist Federation of Germany signed on 25 August 1933. help/aid/assist/facilitate/support the migration of Jews into Palestine?

Straight yes or no? (but perhaps that's too much to ask of you)

That is the point that Ken Livingstone was making, mind readers notwithstanding.

I don't believe for one minute that the racist monster Hitler was a Zionist, any more than the Zionist Federation of Germany were Nazis. But they were both prepared to sup with their own personal devils to achieve their aims.

As expected.

Confirming previous a observation, both yourself and Livingstone seem to favor a simplified approach to historical detail - one that focuses on tags, headlines and impressions. A simple yes or no over complicated explanation. But do go on berating the "appalling scholarship" of others. The issue, by the way, was the subject of a previous topic on TVF, may want to look it up. Or just read one of the latest commentaries, non of them a simple yes or no.

And on with the demagoguery - whinging about "mind readers", while offering personal interpretations of the same text. Ken Livingstone said what he said, and all your spins are simply poor attempts at damage control.

I have always found trouble here to be avoidable and never have I witnessed anything which was unprovoked. If you provoke someone and then things go south, it is your fault and you should have known better.

Agree that most confrontations involving foreigners seem to avoidable or can be concluded in a peaceful manner. This is helped by understanding local culture and adopting a not overly confrontational stance. The issues, I think, are more to do with low provocation thresholds and how quickly these things can escalate.

I NEVER thought I would ever find myself agreeing with anything Red Ken said, just goes to prove how wrong I was.

The history revisionsts can rewrite history all they want, they cant rewrite the truth.

Thankfully in Thailand I can avail myself of a multitude of History channels that dont spread the same propoganda.

Sounds like an amazing conspiracy theory theme park.

All the related sources available in Thailand are also available elsewhere.

Not surprising that the usual suspects on this forum have chimed in as cheerleaders for the nasty Ken Livingstone and his new new friend George Galloway. About time the Labour Party did something about loser Ken trying like Gorgeous George to carve out a similar niche for himself in his political dotage.

Was requested to Livingstone if he should apologise to the Jewish community for the hurt and offense he's caused.

His answer :

"How can I have hurt and offended the Jewish community when the Prime Minister of Israel (has) said exactly the same thing (as I said.) If the Prime Minister of Israel can say, two days before, exactly what I said, it can't mean that I'm antisemitic - and he's certainly not antisemitic."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/30/16-times-ken-livingstone-refused-to-apologise-for-hitler-comment/

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/21/middleeast/netanyahu-hitler-grand-mufti-holocaust/

The cheerleaders must have missed that usual suspect too...

Only thing is that Netanyahu's inane assertions were broadly rejected and debunked, including by members of his own party. Also, Netanyahu did not go as far as claiming Hitler supported Zionism. So not quite the same reaction, and not "exactly the same" as Livingstone said.

Antisemitism and anti-Zionism are not the same. Zionism is a political ideology which has always been contested within Jewish life since it emerged in 1897, and it is entirely legitimate for non-Jews as well as Jews to express opinions about it, whether positive or negative. Not all Jews are Zionists. Not all Zionists are Jews.

Netanyahu didn't quote Zionism.

Livingstone quoted Zionism. And can't be labelled as antisemitic...

You've debunked this duality in your previous post.

I never said all instances of antisemitism and anti-Zionism are the same. The two are not always the same, nor are they mutually exclusive.

Straw man much?

That some people are all to willing even eager to believe Livingstone's assertions is very telling. It is a pretty straight forward job to de-bunk his claims as false. The so called Israel lobby myth depends on Livingstone's assertions to be true. Even the BBC can get this one right.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36165298

I read your link. The Yale history professor Snyder displays appalling scholarship.

The first part of this so called straightforward debunking of what Ken Livingstone said is pathetic pedantry:

"It is inconceivable that Hitler could have wanted to move Jews to Israel, because there was no such place in 1932."

Even a junior high school student could have written that. Well, of course Israel did not exist then, but that does not mean Hitler's agreement with the Zionist Federation of Germany to deport Jews did not help populate Palestine so that it later became Israel.

The rest is just a straw man criticism hinging on the word "support". He is clearly part of the Israeli apologist lobby if you read his background.

Of course, Snyder's "appalling scholarship" cannot compete with your own prowess at pseudo-history, often displayed on this forum.

Attempting do dispense all inaccuracies found in Livingstone's statement as pedantry, nitpicking, twisting of words etc. is just a cop out from facing facts. Both yourself and Livingstone seem to favor a simplified approach to historical detail - one that focuses on tags, headlines and impressions.

And of course, anyone not playing the same tune is "clearly part of the Israeli apologist lobby" (which seems to be a cross between the the assumed real world lobby and forum members). Probably doesn't count as "besmirching" in your double standard book.

Other instances of scholarly criticism of Livingstone's statement were previously linked. More easily found on the net. Guess they are all part of that great conspiracy overtly alluded to. Now where and when were such stories popular....

This is what Ken Livingstone actually said about Hitler..

"Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism – this before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-anti-semitism-row-full-transcript-of-ken-livingstones-interviews-a7005311.html

He did not say Hitler was a Zionist, as in fully paid up member. He implies that Hitler's actions were "supporting Zionism", as indeed they were.

"The Haavara Agreement (Hebrew: הסכם העברה Translit.: heskem haavara Translated: "transfer agreement") was an agreement between Nazi Germany and Zionist German Jews signed on 25 August 1933. The agreement was finalized after three months of talks by the Zionist Federation of Germany, the Anglo-Palestine Bank (under the directive of the Jewish Agency) and the economic authorities of Nazi Germany. The agreement was designed to help facilitate the emigration of German Jews to Palestine."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement

Ken regrets mentioning Hitler because of course the Israeli lobby have pounced upon and twisted his words, causing such a fuss. But what he said about Hitler's actions in the early 1930s were perfectly true; his collusion with the Zionist Federation of Germany in the transfer agreement did help German Jews to migrate to Palestine at the time.

There were a few links detailing all the inaccuracies with Livingstone's statement. Many others can be found, and (as usual) even the link your provide does not quite prove the claim, but posted to enhance such an impression.

Livingstone's statement is not much different than the posting tactic observed above. A soundbite which gives the impression of being factual, and which skips the complexities of things it alludes to.

The 1932 elections were not quite that clear cut an affair. Hitler's views on Jews and Zionism were aired on Mein Kampf, published prior to 1932. The early Nazi policies and dealings with elements of the Zionist movement in Germany were due to economic constraints. Asserting that as "supporting Zionism" is devoid of any integrity: Zionism in the sense of creating a prosperous Jewish state was not on the Nazi agenda.

1. Ken Livingstone direct quote: "He was supporting Zionism".

2. Dexterm interpretation: "He implies that Hitler's actions were "supporting Zionism"".

3. Dexterm making it "real": "what he said about Hitler's actions"

4. Obligatory spin: "the Israeli lobby have pounced upon and twisted his words"

5. Desired QED: Livingstone words being "perfectly true"

Livingstone said what he said. Damage control effort = fail. Altering Livingstone's statement while claiming others twist words is the usual dishonest fare.

Livingstone words being "perfectly true" is an exaggeration at best. But then, nothing out of the norm. And now for the predictable whinging: "nitpicking" (after applying same to Livingstone's words and criticism of), "besmirching" (as if that's not the essence of the above post), overt or hidden claims of "campaign".

Not surprising that the usual suspects on this forum have chimed in as cheerleaders for the nasty Ken Livingstone and his new new friend George Galloway. About time the Labour Party did something about loser Ken trying like Gorgeous George to carve out a similar niche for himself in his political dotage.

Was requested to Livingstone if he should apologise to the Jewish community for the hurt and offense he's caused.

His answer :

"How can I have hurt and offended the Jewish community when the Prime Minister of Israel (has) said exactly the same thing (as I said.) If the Prime Minister of Israel can say, two days before, exactly what I said, it can't mean that I'm antisemitic - and he's certainly not antisemitic."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/30/16-times-ken-livingstone-refused-to-apologise-for-hitler-comment/

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/21/middleeast/netanyahu-hitler-grand-mufti-holocaust/

The cheerleaders must have missed that usual suspect too...

Only thing is that Netanyahu's inane assertions were broadly rejected and debunked, including by members of his own party. Also, Netanyahu did not go as far as claiming Hitler supported Zionism. So not quite the same reaction, and not "exactly the same" as Livingstone said.

From Ken Livingstone's interview..

“As I’ve said, I’ve never heard anybody say anything anti-Semitic, but there’s been a very well-orchestrated campaign by the Israel lobby to smear anybody who criticises Israeli policy as antisemitic. I had to put up with 35 years of this."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-anti-semitism-row-full-transcript-of-ken-livingstones-interviews-a7005311.html

Sounds like the well-orchestrated campaign of the Israeli apologists on this forum. Throw enough mud and you hope some of it will stick, or at least obfuscate the issue being discussed.

So the "issue" being discussed is not Ken Livingstone's actual comments, but rather an alleged well-orchestrated campaign by the Israeli lobby? Or better yet, a alleged well-orchestrated campaign on this forum?

Do go on about obfuscation of topics while derailing them, spread accusations at forum members while whinging about mud being thrown, pull a victim card and blame others for doing it....anything goes. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but carries some entertainment value.

An Auschwitz survivor, Leon Schwarzbaum, who attended the trial, said he was happy Hanning apologized, but that it was not enough, the AP reported.

"I lost 35 family members, how can you apologize for that?" Schwarzbaum, 95, said. "I am not angry; I don't want him to go to prison, but he should say more for the sake of the young generation today because the historical truth is important."

http://www.ibtimes.com/who-reinhold-hanning-former-nazi-auschwitz-guard-breaks-silence-holocaust-german-2361689

Accident my A....s....

It is in case of an imminent terrorist attack go nuclear....

and to do this i think they know a lot more than they say.....

Predictive programming.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Predictive_programming

So Paul Manafort is sort of Trump's Robert Amsterdam. Same same but different paycheck.

Unless my memory fails me, he was (is?) linked with with James Baker and the Bush family.

Was Manafort consulting the latest Bush campaign before hooking up with Trump?

Manifort is too clever to work in another Bush campaign but more than dumb enough to think he can elect Donald Trump. Manifort knows The Donald from Donald's early wheeling and dealing in setting up Atlantic City casinos.

Manifort got big bucks from Putin to elect Vlad's guy Yushchenko in Ukraine and to get Sen John McCain to bail him out of criticism he worked against the US national interest in helping squash the Orange Revolution.

Between Manifort and Trump Putin would get Alaska back -- probably some bonus real estate and resources south of it too. (Oops, got to be careful not to get ahead here of the D party's attack dossiers during the current Trump pre-nomination time )

So yes, James Baker is Manifort's reference point, mentor, and both of 'em stayed away from another Bush. Now it's even worse.

For all of 'em.

Manafort.

No doubt interests groups, future promises and unsavory dealings are afoot. This is pretty much so on every campaign trail. Not as if HRC's candidacy and campaign aren't same same but different. Guess even more garbage will be brought to light through the mutually assured mud slinging. Wonder who's HRC's fixer and how is he/she matched vs. Manafort. In some ways, more interesting than the candidates themselves.

The suspension request came from CIF (Conservative Israeli Friends) or BICOM (Britain Israeli Communications and Research Centre) or any other UK Israeli franchise lobby.

UK Labour Party just did what was requested under pressure...

Yep, Corbyn is well known for being accommodating with all things Israeli.

As the controversial UK-MP Kaminski, who spoke out allegedly 'anti-semitic' quotes, but wasn't suspended or fired, because he was a member of the Conservative Israeli Friends lobby.

Apparently there's a system in the system.

As far as I am aware, Kaminski is a Polish politician. This topic is about the UK.

@Thorgal

2000-2005 were the years when the Second Intifada raged. During these years there were around 140 suicide bomb attacks, resulting in about 600 casualties, Among them pregnant women and children. Some of these suicide attacks were carried out by Palestinian women.

Referring to figures of similar incidents from times when tensions were not running as high would better support whatever point you were trying to make.

Also - http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/913275-israeli-forces-shoot-dead-16-year-old-palestinian-boy-and-his-sister/?p=10688089

Israeli collective punishment to the Palestinian citizens started long before 1948. Apparently there's no exception in this collective punishment for Palestinian children, (pregnant) women, the elderly and even disabled persons.

Pinpointing the previous intifada's is off topic and just another attempt of pushing in vain a fallacy of false comparison.

Israel was not around prior to 1948, certainly not "long before". Violence was not one-sided even back then, though. try again.

You are the one who pinpointed years ("between 2000 and 2005...")

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/913275-israeli-forces-shoot-dead-16-year-old-palestinian-boy-and-his-sister/?p=10693285

I merely supplemented the relevant and conspicuously missing backdrop. Do try to keep up with your own posts.

(, I merely suppllinked to an image specifing

Deleted: Wrong Topic

So Paul Manafort is sort of Trump's Robert Amsterdam. Same same but different paycheck.

Unless my memory fails me, he was (is?) linked with with James Baker and the Bush family.

Was Manafort consulting the latest Bush campaign before hooking up with Trump?

The suspension request came from CIF (Conservative Israeli Friends) or BICOM (Britain Israeli Communications and Research Centre) or any other UK Israeli franchise lobby.

UK Labour Party just did what was requested under pressure...

Yep, Corbyn is well known for being accommodating with all things Israeli.

What with Naz Shah the MP for Bradford East suspended for advocating ethnic cleansing of Israel's entire Jewish population it is plain to see there is an endemic sickness with the British Labour Party, which runs from the top to the grass roots.

The comments of Naz Shah were wholly unacceptable and she is, quite rightly, suspended for them. Whether she is fit to be an MP is a fair question.

Livingston, however, did not, in the interview I watched, offer commentary or analysis but merely pointed to fact of history. John Mann was unable to challenge him on any particular point, but rather came across as the pub bully who had too many pints and not enough reasoning to back up his false outrage.

Livingstone's comments were calculated too cause offense. This coming from a man who once compared a Jewish journalist to a concentration camp guard. Plausible deniability is only plausible in isolation, not when many people linked to the Labour Party have made comments verging on or outright antisemitic.

Jeremy Corbyn (he who referred to Hamas leaders as his 'friends' and has an unfortunate habit of being photographed standing in front of Hezbollah flags) can hardly take a stand when he has similar form himself.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/labours-anti-semitism-problem-stems-from-its-grassroots/

I'm not anti semitic, nor do I support Corbyn or Livingstone.

But labeling anyone who opposes Israel, some of its actions and some of its in-actions as being anti semitc in an effort to smear them and obscure their point of view is wrong and not acceptable in a free democracy.

It used to be "fashionable" for immigrants from the Indian sub-continent to shout 'racial prejudice" if they had any grievance what so ever, weren't treated favorably or did something wrong. Now its the liberals shouting "fascist and nazi" every time someone won't do as they say; or Jewish groups shouting "anti semetism" if anyone speaks against them; or crooked politicians shouting "it's politically motivated" when they get caught committing crimes.

The Labor Party is not there specifically to represent Israeli interests, Palestinian interests, or any other non British country. It is secular.

Seem to have forgotten them groups shouting "Islamophobia".

No doubt water is a key issue

However the Israelis will ethnically cleanse all non Jewish areas and force the indigenous population into gettos

I will now be accused of antisemitism which is nonsense

You will be accused of posting inflammatory nonsense, more like..

Israel is in control of the Golan Heights for almost 50 years now. The local populace, mostly Druze, is eligible for Israeli citizenship.

Golan Heights, water and oil. Well the conflict in Syria now makes a lot more sense as the jackals clamor for the spoils. Israel allies do the killing, Israel reaps the rewards. This has been a published Israeli plan for decades that is now coming to fruition.

A published Israeli plan says poster. Guessing a tinfoil hat link is readily available. Can't wait to see how "Past Israeli leaders, including Netanyahu himself, have held talks with Syria about control of the Golan" figures into this nefarious decades long plan.

To the victors go the spoils of war.....a war that that Israel did not start.

Doesn't quite work this way nowadays.

Seems like most of the world, and even Israel's staunchest friends, do not support the claim.

I think the Golan should be confiscated by the UN and designated a huge camp for all refugees.

And I think you're trolling.

On the off chance you're not - how would such a "confiscation" come about? What would be the added value of opening yet another front in the Syrian conflict? How will all them refugees arrive there?