I'm not defending anything. I am highly critical of Israel on many/most things. I just find some semblance of balance and realism is required or you end up like so many in this thread with utter and complete one eyed silliness that advance a grown up discussion by approximately zero.
FFS. The Golan Heights themselves was lost over 50 years ago. Moving into the sliver of land, the currently defined buffer zone was entirely logical. No country in the world would want that buffer zone to fall into the hands of whatever follows the Assad regime, as it may well end up being another Taliban or worse. If it doesn't then you may well see the UN taking over the buffer zone (although knowing Israel they will make a way to keep Mount Hermon as it vastly improves Israel's ability to protect from drone and missile attacks from Hezbolah and Iran. And of course how long Israel keep Netenyahu may affect the speed of what happens. But characterising this as aggressive expansionism is just silly. If they invade and keep more Syrian territory, especially for no reason, then that could be called expansionism. Seems odd that has to be stated.
Being neither naive, religious motivated, nor part of a 6th form debating club you can't totally ignore realpolitik when that is the context in which everything is happening. Otherwise, all you will end up is being a parody of Python's People's Front of Judea demanding that "We're giving Pilate two days to dismantle the entire apparatus of the Roman Imperialist State".
I don't think that you know your history of Ireland very well. However, that aside, the main thing that you are missing is that in the end Realpolitik and both (all) sides coming to the negotiation table had to occur before anything changed.