Trump Must Not Recognize Israeli Annexation of Golan Heights

by Mitchell Plitnick

There was a lot to digest in the joint press conference held by US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last week. Most of the focus has been on the apparent walk-back Trump made from the long-term and bipartisan US policy supporting a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict and Netanyahu’s shocking apologia for Trump’s refusal to address the sharp rise in antisemitism since his election.

Another point of real significance has therefore been squeezed out of the spotlight: Netanyahu’s proposal that the US recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights.

Netanyahu said that Trump was not surprised by the request. This suggests that the idea is at least being considered in Washington. That should also not surprise us. The situation in Syria clearly precludes any agreement on the Golan issue in the near term, and the US recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the small patch of land would be a huge political coup for Netanyahu.

As with most things concerning Israel, the devil is in the details. The Golan is not often discussed these days. The bloody conflict in Syria has eliminated any talk of a “Syrian track” for diplomacy involving Israel. It is, therefore, reasonable to wonder how much serious consideration this question has even gotten from the soberer officials in the Trump administration, let alone from other, more passionate, voices.

Any realistic look at this question, however, leads to the conclusion that there is no good reason for the United States to agree to Netanyahu’s request. It accomplishes nothing. And it can have extremely dangerous ramifications.

Hauser’s Flawed Analysis

In the pages of the Israeli daily, Haaretz, the former secretary of Netanyahu’s cabinet, Zvi Hauser, makes an unconvincing case for recognition. To counter Iran’s regional ambitions and as a bulwark against an expanding ISIS, Hauser argues, Israel needs a permanent buffer with Syria. “Above all, reality on the ground is stronger than past fixations,” he writes. “There is no horizon on the Golan Heights but the Israeli one. Neither radical Sunni factions and organizations nor an Iran-Hezbollah-Assad foothold in the Kinneret will allow for stabilizing the region and rehabilitating it.”

The problem with this argument is that it makes the case for maintaining Israeli control over the Golan not for making the annexation permanent. In a climate where no one is seriously talking about a Syria-Israel deal, recognizing the Israeli annexation of the Golan does nothing to change the calculus Hauser is discussing.

Hauser also claims that “moderate Sunni axis states won’t fight a move that means exacting a territorial price from the Shi’ite axis of evil.” In this he is simply wrong.

While the leadership in the states Hauser refers to (although “moderate” is an odd term to apply to Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other dictatorships, whose sole claim to moderation is their status as US and sometimes covert Israeli allies) might indeed privately welcome a blow to the Assad regime and its partners in Tehran, they cannot do anything but publicly oppose an American imprimatur on the Israeli annexation of land taken in the 1967 war. Even if they were passionately opposed to the move, their options would be limited at best.

US recognition of Israel’s annexation of the Golan would immediately enflame passions throughout the region and would be the most powerful recruitment tool yet for the Islamic State, al-Qaeda, and other, similarly-minded groups. The Arab world would see this annexation as conclusive evidence of the “imperialist designs” the United States has on the region and the “Zionist regime’s” aggression. It would also reinforce the rationale for fighting Assad, the only leader so weak that he has permanently lost sovereign territory to Israel (recall that the West Bank and Gaza were occupied by Jordan and Egypt, respectively, from 1948-1967).

But Hauser does eventually get around to the crux of the matter. “Israel is in an optimal time and place to make historical achievements consisting mainly of revoking the ‘sanctity’ of the ‘67 borders, internalizing the need to change borders in the area and redrafting them according to current reality,” he writes.

The “internalizing” he speaks of is not, of course, referring to Israelis, but to the rest of the world.

Indeed, US recognition of Israeli sovereignty in the Golan would set an historic precedent and would represent such an enormous achievement for Netanyahu that his current political troubles would vanish. But it would do a lot more than that.

As Hauser notes, US recognition would formally break the international consensus on the inadmissibility of acquiring land by conquest, something that has been the bedrock of international law and diplomacy since the formation of the United Nations. It has also been the foundation of the two-state solution and the various partition plans that preceded it.

Dire Consequences

Palestinians generally ignore the Golan because the non-Israeli population there is Syrian, not Palestinian. But US recognition will force them to take the Golan into account in their strategy, further complicating an already hopelessly tangled mess. More importantly, it will also mean that the Palestinians will likely harden their stance, leading to increased support for violent remedies to what will then be an even more hopeless situation of occupation.

Russia may well veto de jure annexation. Trump, whether one believes he is in troubling cahoots with Vladimir Putin or merely wants to improve relations with the Eurasian bear, is unlikely to grant Netanyahu’s request over Russian objections. If Russian acquiesces, Putin will want a quid pro quo. But Putin will not simply accept a US move that harms his allies in Damascus and Tehran just to bolster Netanyahu’s position.

Netanyahu is likely to pursue U.S. recognition if Trump does not reject the idea outright, as Barack Obama did in 2015. Just by raising the request, he scores political points and the grand prize is just too great for him to ignore. Proponents of international law and others deeply concerned about the region might be vocal in opposing this idea, but the Golan is not going to stir the passions the West Bank does. Netanyahu’s proposal, however, is very dangerous, and the public should be aware of the potential consequences.

Photo of Golan Heights courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Mitchell Plitnick

Mitchell Plitnick is a political analyst and writer. His previous positions include vice president at the Foundation for Middle East Peace, director of the US Office of B’Tselem: The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, and co-director of Jewish Voice for Peace. His writing has appeared in Ha’aretz, the New Republic, the Jordan Times, Middle East Report, the San Francisco Chronicle, +972 Magazine, Outlook, and other outlets. He was a columnist for Tikkun Magazine, Zeek Magazine and Souciant. He has spoken all over the country on Middle East politics, and has regularly offered commentary in a wide range of radio and television outlets including PBS News Hour, the O’Reilly Factor, i24 (Israel), Pacifica Radio, CNBC Asia and many other outlets, as well as at his own blog, Rethinking Foreign Policy, at You can find him on Twitter @MJPlitnick.



  1. Thanks for the post, It seems that the respectable author of the post, is not aware of the fact (legal fact) that the Golan, has been annexed already in 1981 to become integral sovereign part of the Israeli state .Here I quote article 1 of the law, under the title:

    December 14, 1981

    The Law, jurisdiction and administration of the state shall apply to the Golan Heights, as described in the Appendix.

    End of quotation :

    So, how Russia may well veto de jure annexation ? already done ! a fait accompli !! This is an objective fact, legal one, and whatsoever, as legal fact, no recognition of third parties, may change it. One may argue that it is wrong , but not that it is yet occupied or not sovereign territory of Israel. Syrians there (Drus) have (basically) full citizenship and civilian rights there.


  2. I very much agree Israel should not be encouraged to attempt to “annex” the Golan Heights.

  3. JC: “I very much agree Israel should not be encouraged to attempt to “annex” the Golan Heights.”

    You’re a bit late, James.

    The Golan Heights Law passed through the Knesset in 1981, so as far as the ISRAELIS are concerned they haven’t just “attempted” this, they’ve already annexed the damned thing.

    What’s at stake is international (or, more properly, USA) recognition of that illegal act.

    That’s a big stake because such recognition would upend the post-ww2 dictum regarding “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”.

    Trump would be a fool to recognize Israel’s claim to have annexed the Golan Heights, precisely because there is much, much, much more at stake than just a bunch of 2nd rate wineries, some scrapping walking trails, and a few IDF listening posts.

    Because if it is Okey-Dokey for a state to invade another state’s territory and then shout “It’s mine! Mine! Mine!” then, honestly, Trump will have taken the world back to a place and time that we last saw in…… 1939.

  4. YR Israel purports to have “annexed” the Golan Heights. No recognition obtains from the international community.

  5. El roam,
    Nobody outside Israel is required to recognize that legislation, and nobody in their right mind would.

    The Golan Heights Law is simply a very good imitation of Daffy Duck in the cartoon called Ali Baba Bunny, when he dives into the pile of gold and shouts “It’s Mine! Mine! All Mine!!!!!!!”.

    No, it isn’t his, and all Daffy Duck was doing was playing a game of “let’s pretend” with itself.

    Same with Israel w.r.t. the Golan Heights Law – it amounts to Israel playing a game of “let’s pretend” and then wondering why none of the grownups will get in the sandpit with them.

    Pointing to the Golan Heights Law is simply an exercise in futility because it requires accepting a legal absurdity i.e. a domestic legislature only has jurisdiction over its own territory, which means that Knesset actually LACKS the jurisdiction that it would need in order to pass a law that would grant it that jurisdiction.

    Catch 22.

    Get it?

    Let me explain: the Knesset would need to HAVE jurisdiction over the Golan Heights in order to legally EXTEND its jurisdiction into the Golan Heights, but since it DOESN’T HAVE that jurisdiction it therefore CAN’T pass a law that would grant itself that jurisdiction.

    Catch 22.

    The Government of Israel would actually have to proclaim its annexation of that territory (the Golan Heights Law doesn’t do that, it talks only of legislative jurisdiction and administration), and that leads to another legal absurdity: Israel can’t do that, because international law clearly says that the acquisition of territory by war is “inadmissible”.

Comments are closed.