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
Pathetic. No, really, Jeffrey’s effort is the very definition of pathetic. All but two of his examples prove my point, the other two are such obvious howlers that it is almost embarrassing to point them out.
Oh, well, may as well wade in…..
JW: “Seizure of German territory after WW2 by neighboring countries which they were allowed to keep.”
The First Howler.
Ahem, I did say the POST-WW2 world, Jeffrey. All the territory that Germany lost was all decided upon by the Allies during WW2 (mainly at Yalta and at Potsdam). As such they can not be counted w.r.t the legal structure that was erected POST-WW2.
JW: “Morocco occupied just over 100,000 square miles of desert flatlands in the Western Sahara (formerly the Spanish Sahara) that was also claimed by Mauritania.”
And not one country on Earth accepts that Morocco had legal title to Western Sahara because of that occupation, JUST LIKE ISRAEL AND THE GOLAN HEIGHTS.
JW: “Indonesia invaded East Timor and seized territory, pressured economically by Australia but otherwise nothing was done.”
And not one country on Earth accepts that Indonesia had legal title to East Timor because of that occupation, JUST LIKE ISRAEL AND THE GOLAN HEIGHTS.
JW: “North Vietnam invaded and conquered South Vietnam, recognized by all now.”
Recognized by all because ALL the Vietamese people accept that unification, just as all would recognize an annexation of ALL of Palestine if ALL the Palestinians agreed to it.
JW: “Yes, China conquest of Tibet.”
The second howler.
Tibet was Chinese territory, and had been for hundreds of years. Sorry, but that’s the truth, no matter how ignorant you are. States are entitled to bring rebel provinces back under the control of the central government.
JW: “Ethiopia seizure of land allocated to Eritrea per “binding arbitration” Ethiopia agreed to.”
Jeffrey, what other state acknowledged that seizure as leading to a legal annexation of that territory?
JW: “Turkish seizure of North Cypress”
I’ll ask again: which other state agrees that Turkey has gained legal title over North Cypress merely because the Turkish army seized it at the point of a gun?
As far as I can see in Jeffrey’s “slam-dunk” list there is only one example that bears close examination, and that’s the North Vietnamese army overrunning South Vietnam and the subsequent unification under one state.
Even that fails the test because following that event the North Vietnamese government did the only thing that could make that legal i.e. it dissolved BOTH states and reconstituted it into a single unitary state: Vietnam.
It’s that act of state succession that has been universally recognized, not the military seizure that predated it.
Sorta’ like what would happen if the Israeli state annexed all of the West Bank and Gaza Strip into a single unitary state with universal citizenship for all.
As Trump says: so long as both parties like that idea then so does he. And so would I.
JW: “It is easy to see that there is nothing morally wrong with an aggressor losing territory to the aggressed upon. ”
Jeffrey is showing his oh-so-Zionist tendency to apply different “morality” when referring to Israel versus Other Situations Not Involving Israel.
He is not at all happy that nobody will recognize Israel’s claim to the Golan Heights.
Forget the fact that nobody will DO anything about it (and it is a fact that no country is willing to take up arms against Israel over the Golan), what really sticks in his craw is that nobody will recognize Israel’s claim.
Forget what they (don’t) DO, what matters is what they SAY.
But with Other Situations Not Involving Israel he stakes out the exact opposite “moral” position: since states won’t actually DO anything about those invasions/annexations then that can be taken as proof-positive that everyone regards the situation as being perfectly Kosher.
Forget the fact that nobody will recognize those claims, the very fact that nations won’t take up arms against the aggressor is IN ITSELF proof that they agree with the situation.
So forget what they SAY, what matters is what they (don’t) DO.
So which one is it, Jeffrey?
Your double-standards are nauseating but, as I repeat, it’s oh-so-Zionist.
JW: “Last time I checked your country England used military force to maintain its conquest of its Falkland Island colony.”
Last time I looked (yep, looked again, and it’s still true) the British claimed sovereignty over the Falkland Islands in 1765, and reasserted that claim in 1832. Both of which *rather* predate a POST-WW2 prohibition on territorial self-aggrandizement via conquest.
So the situation post-WW2 was that Britain was (and still is) the sovereign power, and it was Argentina who attempted to conquer the island by war.
Somewhat the reverse of your fairy-tale telling.
JW: “So pot stop calling the kettle black.”
Stop being an embarrassment to yourself, Jeffrey.
YR,
Very amusing and weak rebuttal.
1) You forgot to defend England’s refusal to give up its Falkland colony.
The loss of German land was post-WW2. The allies did not decide it, the Czechs and Poles just seized the land. For example, this is from Wikipedia:
“According to the national census of 14 February 1946, the population of Poland still included 2,288,000 Germans, of which 2,075,000—nearly 91 per cent—lived in the Recovered Territories. By this stage Germans still constituted more than 41 per cent of the inhabitants of these regions. However, by 1950 there were only 200,000 Germans remaining in Poland, and by 1957 that number fell to 65,000. The flight and expulsion of the remaining Germans in the first post-war years presaged a broader campaign to remove signs of former German rule. More than 30,000 German place names were replaced with Polish or Polonized medieval Slavic ones.. . . The German language was banned from public schools, government media and church services. Many German monuments, graveyards, buildings or entire ensembles of buildings were demolished. Objects of art were moved to other parts of the country. German inscriptions were erased, including those on religious objects, in churches and in cemeteries.”
No one objected to this and many years later Germany had no choice but to formalize the ethnic cleansing and border adjustments in a treaty.
Just to be clear, I am not condemning the Poles at all. The Germans deserved this and a whole lot more.
2) Sure North Vietnam unified the country after killing off the opposition forces and reeducating the people (who did not manage to flee) into acceptance of NV communism. Apparently, that’s okay with you, so Israel should conquer Palestine (which of course is not even a country), kill a third of the population who won’t accept Zionism, drive another third off into exile and reeducate the remainder into being good Zionists. Apparently, that plan would meet your approval.
3) You acknowledge the other occupations by Morocco, Ethiopia, Turkey etc. occurred but meekly claim but they were not accepted by anyone. But there are probably some allies of these countries which do accept them. Be that as it may, “not accepted” means nothing. Nobody is doing anything about these occupations which is essentially tacit acceptance.
4) As for the Chinese occupation, you call Tibet a “rebel” province that China had a right to conquer or reconquer. So I guess you don’t care much about self-determination when it comes to the Tibetans, who actually once had a country of their own. You only care about the “Palestinians” who never had sovereignty over a country called Palestine. Hypocrite much?
Despite your florid language, I have actually demolished your argument and exposed you as being a typical hypocrite with one standard by which Israel must abide and will be judged and a much lower standard for the rest of the World including your own country.
YR,
How amusing. This is an ultra-liberal blog that is obviously not used to having powerful conservative and nationalist voices being heard. My views are quite consistent and principled. There is nothing wrong with the victim of aggression taking land from the aggressor.
Show me another example in the world where a bunch of countries ganged up on a much smaller country and tried to beat it up, but the little country punched them in the face and took their lunch money instead…and I will apply my principle to that situation equally.
What you are saying your country can get away with stealing other lands because it happened before 1945 and now gets to impose the “new rule” prohibiting similar conduct, but does not even have to give back the stolen land. I don’t see any reason hypocrites get to impose selective morality in that fashion.
You also have not addressed my argument that many other countries have seized land in a border dispute with suffering so many UN resolutions, threats, etc. as does Israel. Explain that double standard.
See my other recent post for further insight.
JW: “1) You forgot to defend England’s refusal to give up its Falkland colony.”
!!!!!!!!
Just listen to yourself, Jeffrey.
The Falkland Islands is British Sovereign Territory. The British don’t have to be “defensive” regarding their “refusal” to “give it up”, any more than they have to be “defensive” about not “giving up” Gibraltar to Spain, or about not surrendering the Channel Islands to France
It. Belongs. To. Them.
They. Own. It.
Even the Argentinians admit that, they just argue that it’s so darn unfair that far-off-Britain owns some islands that are just off the Argentinian coast.