Again, you're replying with emotion not logic. Territory doesn't get divided up nicely based on what kind acts you've done for a country. It's get divided up by force of arms. And the force of arms that netted the Golan to Israel was the failure of the Syrian military to keep it after charging headlong into Israel. The fault of the Golan's loss rests squarely on Syrian military shoulders.

You can try your anti-Israel arguments with someone else, I'm not here to defend Israel. But I'm totally here to tell you that "IT WAS MINE ONCE SO I WANT IT BACK!" isn't a real argument, doesn't carry any weight in the real world, and is an argument unique to backwards people who are approaching geopolitical irrelevance and can no longer achieve their aims through force of arms.

If Syria takes the Golan back from Israel, I'll support it 100%. If Israel defeats that attempt to take it back, I'll support it 100%. Territory isn't seized by ideology, no matter what WorldSupportsBashar would have you believe. Territory is seized by force. And right now, and for the past half a century, Syria has been absolutely nowhere close to powerful enough to take it. When they're one day powerful enough to take it back, then there will be something to discuss.

Israel doesn't get anything. Israel did nothing but fund and protect terorrists and bomb the SAA and syrian people, why should they get jack shit?

You're fundamentally misunderstanding this yet again. It doesn't fucking matter whether a nation "Should" or "shouldn't" get land. They either "can" or "can't" get land. And Syria "can't" get the Golan because they lack the ability. Syria "couldn't" keep the Golan because they lacked the military ability to do so.

Be angry all you want, but as I said initially borders are drawn by might not emotion.