T. Belman. US policy prolongs the conflict. They could easily agree to this but they don’t. Similarly they could force the windup of UNRWA by cutting off the flow of money, but they don’t. They could demand that the PA stop incitement by cutting off the flow of money but they don’t.
Washington rejects Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s suggestion to U.S. President Barack Obama at the White House on Monday to discuss the possibility of U.S. recognition of Israeli rule over the Golan Heights, a senior White House official said.
In making the suggestion, Netanyahu pointed to Syria’s growing destabilization from civil war. But the White House official said the U.S. position, which objects to Israel annexing the Golan Heights, remains unchanged, adding that Netanyahu’s proposal was unjustified and could even harm U.S.-backed Syrian opposition forces.
The administration official said Netanyahu raised the issue of the Golan Heights’ status as part of a wider discussion with Obama about Israel’s interests in Syria and Jerusalem’s fears of growing Iranian control in the war-torn country.
“We were talking about Syria and Netanyahu said he had nothing to do with the domestic situation in the country, and that he cared about [preventing] the transfer of weapons to Hezbollah and [the creation] of a second front in the Golan by Iran and Hezbollah,” the official said.
“And then he [Netanyahu] said almost in passing that one way to do it would be to recognize Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan … because under these conditions Israel will not give it back to Syria,” he said.
Netanyahu did not delve into details beyond that single line, which was the reason U.S. President Obama did not respond. “I think the president didn’t think it warranted an answer,” the official said. “It wasn’t clear how serious he [Netanyahu] was about it. I think that it was clear the U.S. is not going to change its position about the future of the Golan. … We [have] always said it has to be negotiated in line with [UN Security Council resolutions] 242 and 338. This has been and remains our position and it will not change,” he said.
An American official with knowledge of the issue noted that one reason the Obama administration objects to recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, or even holding a theoretical discussion about such a possibility, is America’s overarching policy on Syria – its support of the Syrian opposition and the talks currently being held in Vienna between different world powers, Iran and the United Nations in an attempt to reach a diplomatic solution to the Syrian civil war.
The suggestion to change Washington’s position on the Golan “complicates the strategy on Syria by putting the opposition in Syria that we are supporting in a very awkward position,” the White House official said. “If there is any indication that the U.S. position on the Golan is changing it would make our relations with the opposition complicated, and it will expose the opposition to regime accusations that they are allies with people who want to give up the Golan. I don’t think it makes political sense and it is not necessary because there is no prospect of Syria-Israeli negotiation for the foreseeable future. So it’s unwarranted and counterproductive,” the official said.
Behind Netanyahu’s suggestion during his meeting with Obama stands a political and diplomatic position formulated by different forces on the right during the past year, according to which the situation in Syria and the growing control by ISIS and Al-Qaida-affiliated groups over large areas of Syria could enable Israel to attain international recognition of its 1981 annexation of the Golan Heights.
A prominent voice on the right promoting that view is Zvi Hauser, Netanyahu’s cabinet secretary from 2009-2013. In July, Hauser published an article in Haaretz claiming that in the wake of the nuclear accord between Iran and the world powers, Israel must work to attain an overall “American pledge” regarding the Golan, including presidential and Congressional assurances of Israeli control over the area.
The United States and the international community have never recognized Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights. Over the years, Washington has regarded the Golan as occupied Syrian territory and has even tried to advance negotiations between Israel and Syria to reach a peace deal that will see Israel withdraw from the Golan. During his first term as prime minister, Netanyahu even held talks with former Syrian president Hafez Assad through his personal emissary, American businessman Ron Lauder, regarding a possible Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights.
American envoys Dennis Ross and Fred Hof claimed that Netanyahu agreed to discuss a full withdrawal from the Golan Heights in exchange for peace and the ending of Syria’s alliance with Iran Hezbollah.
Most importantly right now Israelis need to express themselves to their leaders regarding the rumors of replacing Bennet and his colleagues with a national unity gov’t which includes livni and herzog. Netanyahu needs to hear from them. They need to scream bloody murder and if they want to they will,I would because i do not believe in a mirage a pipe dream called “national unity at a time like this”, according to my friend I Leibler. If Netany ahu had not done such a poor job in the run up to the election, he would not have needed to stoop so low as to steal most of Bennet’s mandates, THAT was dirty politics, the politics of fear and I dare say it will not work for Bibi again. His job, never forget terminates 24 hours after Obama evacuates the White House…for points unknown…maybe Kenya.
Allow me to pose a question. Do you think PM Ariel Sharon KNEW, for sure, that Gaza would be taken over by Hamas and turned into a terror base?
I thought I knew the answer to this question and when I offered my opinion to Uzi Landau he told me that my comments were, “…in place….” Now if I knew that Hamas would take over Gaza and turn it into a Terrorist Base before the withdrawal was implemented, is it conceivable that General Ariel Sharon, saved Israel’s hind quarters in The 1973 War, could not have known the same thing. It is a rhetorical question. Look, don’t worry about it, Israel will be fine….
@ Bert:
Perhaps, Bert. It is also creative ambiguity or posturing. Why show your cards for all to see when there is benefit in not doing so, for the time….it is obvious to know what country Golan, Judea, Samaria are within…even Gaza.
One more evidence that the neo-orientalists and antisemites don’t want a Jewish state.
Israelis must demand to have access to the Levy report.
Conceding what is legally yours without a fight is the Israel government position on J & S and E-Jerusalem. This is shameful.
It is always the craven and debased Israeli government that refuses to declare that ALL the land belongs to Israel. This refusal is what Obama exploits against Israel. The greatest threat to Israeli security is this Israeli government with their cancer of the soul.
Israel’s best bet is to help those seeking to break up syria into statelets. a non existent state without a border on Israel has little to claim
I don’t see it happening with the deceased Syrian state and several claimants to its title.
Its like parking Hamas overlooking Lake Kinneret.
An insane idea – not that it was ever a good idea in the first place.