如何看待蓬佩奥称以色列「收回」戈兰高地和俄罗斯「夺走」克里米亚不同这一表态，是否属于双标？ 第1页

任何想法，要把戈兰高地归还给叙利亚和大马色屠夫Bashar Assad这种侵略者，都会对以色列带来灾难，在道德上错误，在战略上危险。
Any thought of returning the Golan to the aggressor—Syria and the butcher of Damascus, Bashar Assad—would be disastrous for Israel, morally wrong and strategically dangerous.
奖励叙利亚在1967年和1973攻击以色列，会改变其它扩张主义独裁者的损益考量。有国家决定要不要侵略邻国，它必须计算自己扩张失败，反而丢失土地的风险。如果戈兰高地被归还，就是告诉侵略者，他们失去的领土最终还能回来。这将减少了侵略者发动战争的风险——从而引致更多侵略。
Rewarding Syria for attacking Israel in 1967 and again in 1973 would dramatically change the cost-benefit calculations of other expansionist dictators. When a state decides whether to invade a neighbor, it has to take account of the risk that it will lose land instead of gaining it. If the Golan Heights are returned, it tells invaders that territory they lose will eventually be given back. That would unburden aggressors from much of the risk involved in starting wars—a recipe for more aggression.

每次打了以色列都失去国土，阿拉伯国家才在今天甘心谈判的嘛。
埃及人也是失地之后才坚决和解。即便Anwar Sadat遇刺之后，还是坚定继续，才有如今两国四十年的友好和反恐上的亲密合作。

当然Hamas往以色列扔火箭，目前好像风险不大。

“以色列没有再次夺取加沙，是因为去了就必须持续占领。”（Israel hasn't recaptured Gaza, because once it does, it would have to continue to hold onto that territory.）
Netanyahu说以色列政府“不想统治那里的两百万巴勒斯坦人。”（doesn't want to rule the two million Palestinians there.）

所有选项都在桌上，都是为以色列的好处考虑，也包括进入并占领加沙。但是那是最后选项，不是第一优先。
All the options are still on the table, including entering Gaza and occupying it, out of consideration of what is best for Israel. But that is the last option and not the first.

有个安全友好的周边环境就好。
即便是合理的领土扩张，人家也需要比较损益。
侵略之前的筹算，更是如此。