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
David,
Funny you are from Armenia. Your country, according to some, has illegally occupied portions of neighboring Azerbaijan as a result of military force. While some argue that Israel has “illegally” acquired territory by military force, many of those critics (Turkey, Armenia and others) have themselves “illegally” acquired territory by military force.
Anyway, I’m not saying the USA should “automatically” recognize anything. But in the case of Israel and Syria, Israel has held the Golan Heights longer than Syria has, Syria has never signed a peace treaty, and is disintegrating as we speak. Now, the USA should go ahead and recognize the annexation because it will send a message to the Palestinians they need to be very strong in moving toward a peace treaty or else they will suffer a similar fate.
Hi Jeffrey,
And, according others, the Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh defended themselves from being cleaned from that region, regardless of whose jurisdiction this region was awarded to in the 1920s. [If you take a look at my American Thinker article], the case of Nagorno-Karabakh overshadows that of Israel in Golan. That is it, and no more than that.
I am pointing out in my comment thread is that the international consequences of a unilateral, officially US recognized annexation of Golan, will be significant. In your second paragraph you continue to justify an Israeli Golan incorporation. I never stated an opinion on an Israeli annexation, only that if a Golan annexation is considered reasonable, I am familiar with at least another case that has better characteristics. This does not take us down a well paved road.
Am I to conclude that if the Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh don’t acquiesce to Azerbaijani demands, they will suffer some fate the Palestinian might suffer if hey don’t accede to prevailing forces? Hope not, for this takes many of us down an even rockier road.
Yerevan, Armenia
David,
I have no dog in the Armenian/Azerbaijani fight and certainly did not mean to suggest I think one side should prevail over the other on the dispute. Unlike everybody and their mother who thinks they have some special insight or moral standing to lecture the Israelis, I’m not prepared to lecture anyone in that dispute.
I did take a look at your American Thinker argument and I think you misunderstand the Israeli claim to Golan. While it might have been historically part of ancient Israel, the overwhelming reason for annexation is that Syria used the Heights to abuse and terrorize the Israelis in the valleys below and to threaten Israel’s chief water supply. Since Syria vowed to utterly destroy Israel just prior to the 1967 war and there was every reason to think they would try, Israel had the right to seize the territory. Now, since Syria has had decades to sign a peace treaty with Israel but refused to do so, attacking Israel again in 1973 and then aiding terrorist groups against Israel, at some point in time Israel was permitted to say “forget it, you lost it and you’re not getting it back.”
Is the NK region of similar strategic significance for the Armenians or Azeris? Or is it more a matter of demographics like the Kashmir dispute with India and Pakistan?
yeah right ,
You simply don’t know , and you can’t know , what you are writing about ( in such ridiculous dictated tone ) :
Annexation , depends upon the action of the occupier , not upon recognition of third parties . The occupier annex actually , not third parties . So , once annexed , it is what it is !! An annexed territory !! And if no Marshall law exercised there , and full civil rights granted , no more occupation reigns there ! here I quote from Hague convention ( which is customary international law , means (generally speaking ) that , generally accepted by all states , without any need for being party to a convention ) under the title :
” Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907.”
Here article 42 :
Art. 42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
End of quotation :
Means , that if No Marshall law reigns ( hostile army ) no occupation !!
And further , Are you serious to claim that the Knesset has no jurisdiction on the Golan ?? Suppose it was occupied territory ( as been until 1981 ) then what ?? The army was de facto sovereign there , and the Knesset is de jure the sovereign of the army . The army is a subordinate of the state , of the Knesset , otherwise , who is in charge there ?? to implement Geneva conventions for example ?? The army as an agent of the state , the state , means the Knesset as legislator , dictating status of the territory and custom there !
Recognition of third parties , has got nothing to do here . There are no rules , internationally recognized , dictating that third parties recognition , form actually the objective existence of a state . Iran doesn’t recognize Israel , so , Israel doesn’t exist according to such nonsense ??
The closest provisions , not binding internationally and widely so , are those of
:
” Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States”
And , article 3 the head of it states clearly :
” The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states…. ”
And that’s it !! you have written here , bunch of nonsense , yet I was very patient with you …God knows how could I do it , but anyway , the delay in posting comments in this site , drive me crazy , several days , until those lazy moderators move on . So , don’t comment on me further , I don’t comment here anymore .
Farewell
JW:”YR, So what. Wikipedia:”……
I think that comment is proof-positive that Jeffrey obtained his law degree from the University of Wikipedia.
Jeffrey, that you quote a wiki article (which, as far as I know, you could have written) which uses weasel-words to describe the Golan Heights Law does not make that law any less weasel-worded.
Hint: It was written to be weasel-worded, precisely because Israel is engaged in a sleight of hand.
JW:”Just reality. What are you going to do, sue Israel?”
*sigh*
The Israeli legislature granted itself a legal authority where it did not have the legal authority to grant itself that legal authority.
So, yeah, I expect everyone else in The Whole Damn World to tell Israel that this law is Null And Void and will not be recognized by them.
Oh, look, it’s now 36 years and counting and Every Damn Country In The Entire World considers the Golan Heights Law to be Null and Void and they refuse to recognize it.
Go figure, hey?
JW: “Are you asking Israel to formally annex Golan? I doubt it.”
The QED, I win. If the territory has not been annexed then it is – axiomatically – not Israeli territory. In which case the principle of the non-extraterritoriality of domestic legislation applies i.e. the Knesset does not have the jurisdiction to grant itself the jurisdiction that it claims in the Golan Heights Law.
Or, in simple terms: the law is Null and Void and will not be recognized by the Entire World.
JW: “Rather than quibble,”…..
It is not a quibble, Jeffrey. It is a fundamental concept of law that the laws passed by a domestic legislature only has jurisdiction within the territory of that state.
If Israel has not annexed the Golan – and you admit that it has not – then the Knesset does not have the authority to grant itself jurisdiction over the Golan Heights.
Or, in other words: the Knesset is playing a game of “let’s pretend” with itself, and it continues to be amazed when the grown-ups refuse to get in the sandpit and play along with them.
That’s what this is all about – the self-delusion of Zionists like yourself, and your utter inability to pull your head out of your own arse and understand **why** the rest of the world refuses to go along with your delusions.