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
JW: “My views are quite consistent and principled.”
No, they are actually astonishingly tunnel-visioned, to the point where you will proffer ANY argument that is advantageous to Israel regardless of the wider implications of that advocacy.
Head-up-the-arse advocacy, which just has hasbarah written all over it, don’t it?
JW: “There is nothing wrong with the victim of aggression taking land from the aggressor.”
Well, actually, there is. There wouldn’t be a single war that hasn’t started with the aggressor shouting “But THEY STARTED IT!!!!!” as if that were a universal get-out-of-goal card.
Heck, even the Germans shouted that POLAND STARTED IT!
If you don’t believe me then go to your go-to-place and Wiki-up these words: The Gleiwitz Incident.
Get it, Jeffrey? It is too easy for an aggressor to paint themselves as acting in self-defense, and BECAUSE that’s oh-so-easy then international humanitarian law has a blanket ban on “the acquisition of territory by war”.
BANG!
State: I’ve grabbed it, it’s mine now!
IHL: No. You grabbed it, so you occupy it.
State: But they had it coming to them!
IHL: Doesn’t matter. You grabbed it, so you occupy it.
State: But they shot first!!!!!
IHL: Doesn’t matter. You grabbed it, so you occupy it.
State: But! But! But! But!
IHL: Still doesn’t matter. You grabbed it, so you occupy it.
State: That’s so unfair, you anti-Semite bastard!
IHL: Whatever. You grabbed it, so you occupy it.
JW: “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,”
Jeffrey’s special pleading for Israel, because Israel was late to the party.
Dude, there was once an Age Of Empire. And during the Age Of Empire then countries (like Britain, but there were others) went about acquiring territory by way of conquest, all the better to Build Their Empires.
Because, you know, that was the Age of Empire.
But that age came to an end in the 20th century, and so Post-WW2 no country could legally acquire territory via war.
That meant that Britain can no longer do what it was doing during the Age Of Empire.
That is also true of France, or the Dutch, or the Americans, or anyone else.
This is equally true of Israel, except that Zionists like you can’t seem to grasp a simple fact.
And it is a simple fact: what was then was then, and what is now is now.
Back then “conquest” was kosher. Now it isn’t.
Unfair, I know. But it is JUST as unfair on everyone.
The Brits can’t go off empire building, and nor can the Yanks.
Neither can the Frenchies, or the Egyptians, or the Saudis, or the Moroccans, or the Turks.
Neither Can Israel.
The only difference is that the civilized countries of the world accept that, whereas there are more venal parts of the world where the idea hasn’t fully set in.
Israel, of course, counts itself amongst the venal members of the world-community.
It knows better, but it just can’t help itself, which is why it has to attempt pathetic sleight-of-hands like the Golan Heights Law.
@ Jeffrey Wilens: “North Vietnam invaded and conquered South Vietnam, recognized by all now.”
Jeffrey, I am not familiar with the history of the other cases you cite, but I am all too familiar with that of Viet Nam, owing to my vacation there for 27 months plus one day paid for by the U.S. Army.
Prior to World War II, Viet Nam (a single country) was a French colony. The Japanese invaded and kicked the French out. At the end of the war, the Vietnamese attempted to persuade the U.S. to keep France out and to allow them to form their own government. The U.S. refused to do so and the French returned. The indigenous Viet Minh forces that had fought the Japanese went to work on the French, defeating them in the Battle of Dien Ben Phu. The French left, with a peace agreement hastily brokered by the U.S., which established South Viet Nam as a temporary state, with a plebiscite to be held about a year later in South Viet Nam on whether to reunify the entire country.
Recognizing that it would lose the vote, the U.S. puppet government of South Viet Nam simply refused to hold the plebescite, thereby reinstating the state of war that was fought at first by an indigenous force, the Viet Cong, then by both that force and North Vietnamese troops . After some 15 years of fighting, the U.S. withdrew and all of Viet Nam was reunified.
It is incorrect to state that North Viet Nam acquired South Viet Nam by conquest. North Viet Nam was never a separate nation. South Viet Nam was never legitimately a separate state after the deadline for the plebiscite and only existed somewhat lawfully in an interim status for about a year.
During the entirety of the French occupation both before and after the war, Viet Nam was occupied territory. As occupied territory, its citizens had a lawful right of armed resistance. They exercised that right and took back their country from the French and then from the U.S. and its puppet government.
Paul, Thank you for your service.
Now maybe the French & United States made a serious error in not supporting the Viet Minh, but we were legitimately concerned the “election” would ultimately lead to a communist state and the end of elections. Even if a communist state starts with a free election, that is the last free election it typically holds. You also ignore the fact we had our puppet state but the Soviets and/or Chinese had theirs on the other side.
The point I was making is the USA and the rest of the world gave up at some point and permitted a single communist state in Vietnam, which then did in fact commit mass murder and oppression as predicted. Only decades later did it move toward becoming a more “liberal” (in the Western sense) state as the inherent weaknesses in communism became overwhelming. The single communist state was indeed created (or reunified if you insist) by force and the world permitted it.
This was a response the ridiculous assertion that since WW2 the world does not permit conquest of lands to be settled by military force.
JW The insurgency in South Vietnam was a civil war, supported of course by North Vietnam. Israel’s occupation of the Golan Heights was not the outcome of a civil war. Your expectation that the international community will accept Israel’s annexation of the GH is misplaced, in my view.