Who Should Own the Golan?

The only legitimate argument for transferring large portions of the disputed territories in Judea, Samaria and Gaza to the Palestinian Arabs is the fact that they are largely populated by people who don't want to live in Israel but want to be part of an Arab state.

If one accepts that argument and favors the transfer of disputed territories to the Palestinian Arabs, then unless one applies a double standard one must accept the reality that much or all of the Golan Heights, depending on the preferences of the Druze and Muslims living there, should remain with Israel.

The Golan Heights has, for all practical purposes, been part of Israel for longer than it was ever part of Syria. It was, at the time of the Balfour Declaration, considered to be part of Palestine and then intended as part of the future Jewish state. It was only because of a territorial trade between colonial powers Britain and France that the Golan Heights was temporarily attached to the territory that became Syria.

In effect, Syria took the Golan Heights from Israel before Israel took it back in 1967.

Additionally, just as the fact that Judea, Samaria and Gaza were supposed to be part of Israel doesn't trump the reality that the Palestinian Arabs living there don't want to be part of Israel - nor the reality that the Jews living there certainly don't want to be part of a Palestinian Arab state, the fact that the Golan Heights were part of Syria for a short time doesn't trump the reality that the Jews living there don't want to be part of Syria.

The residents of the Golan Heights should decide what state should have sovereignty. If they are fairly evenly split, then the Golan should be divided between Israel and Syria; if they overwhelmingly prefer to be part of Israel, then they and the bulk of the Golan Heights should remain with Israel.

Anything else would amount to a double standard and a denial and justice.