T. Belman. This article is remiss in not stressing that the Golan is covered by Res 242 which grants Israel the right to retain some of the lands and to have defensible borders. Based on this alone we can claim that the border must be drawn so that the Golan remains part of Israel. We can insist on this forever. So in effect Israel is offering peace for peace and not land for peace. As I said before, Israel would rather have the Golan than a peace agreement with Syria. There are many land disputes around the world that remain disputes.
As for Baker’s remarks that extending Israeli law to the Golan falls short of annexation, that was so because the Golan is occupied territory of another country. But extending Israeli law to Judea and Samaria would effectively annex such lands because they were not the lands of another party and in fact were part of the land of Israel. Israel didn’t annex the land it acquired in the War of Independence either. It merely extended Israeli law to such land right up to the Armistice lines in accordance with Ben Gurion’s Law.
Howard Grief z”l explain’s this law in David Ben-Gurion’s Forgotten 1948 Land of Israel Proclamation for the Annexation of Judea and Samaria.
Although PM says Heights will remain under state’s sovereignty forever, expert stresses situation on the ground has not changed and land was never annexed
AP — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has sparked a new diplomatic brushfire by declaring that the Golan Heights, seized from Syria in the 1967 Six Day War, is and should remain “under Israel’s sovereignty permanently.”
But following tough international criticism, Israeli officials said Netanyahu’s statements had been misconstrued and that a 1981 decision to apply Israeli law to the strategic plateau fell short of annexation.
The debate offers a window into a more nuanced Israeli perspective that, despite statements from the country’s hard-line political leadership, continues to leave the door open, just barely, to a peace deal when Syria’s civil war finally winds down.
For now, the debate is largely academic. Syria has been engulfed in civil war for nearly five years, and there is no end in sight. With Syria, and the Syrian side of the Golan, divided between Syrian troops and various rebel forces, there is nobody to talk to, even if Israel decided to open negotiations.
Benjamin Netanyahu is seen during a security tour in the Golan Heights, near Israel’s northern border with Syria, on April 11, 2016. (Kobi Gideon/GPO)
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is seen during a security tour in the Golan Heights, near Israel’s northern border with Syria, on April 11, 2016. (Kobi Gideon/GPO)
But the Golan remains central to any future peace deal with Syria, and its fate is a key part of a 2002 Saudi initiative that offered Israel peace with the Arab world in exchange for a full withdrawal from all territories captured in the 1967 Mideast war. While that offer is usually connected to areas sought by the Palestinians, the Golan is also considered occupied land by the international community. Past Israeli leaders, including Netanyahu himself, have held talks with Syria about control of the Golan.
So when Netanyahu convened his cabinet for a first-ever meeting in the Golan on April 17, he triggered an international uproar by calling it “sovereign” Israeli territory.
“The Golan Heights will forever remain in Israel’s hands,” he declared. “After 50 years, the time has come for the international community to finally recognize that the Golan Heights will remain under Israel’s sovereignty permanently.”
The US, Israel’s closest ally, quickly criticized Netanyahu, saying the Golan is “not part of Israel.” Germany and the European Union also rejected his statement, as did the Arab League, 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the Syrian government. And early this week, the UN Security Council took issue with him.
“Council members expressed their deep concern over recent Israeli statements about the Golan and stressed that the status of the Golan remains unchanged,” said Council President Liu Jieyi, China’s ambassador to the UN He noted a previous 1981 resolution that said Israel’s decision to impose Israeli law on the Golan is “null and void.”
Alan Baker, a former legal adviser to Israel’s Foreign Ministry, said the parliamentary decision to impose Israeli law back in 1981 was “merely a means of governing” the territory. He said that previously, Syria had deferred to the local Druze population, whose secretive religion and customs were difficult to apply after Israel took over.
He said Israel was careful not to annex the territory — a decision that would require additional parliamentary action — in order not to “prejudice” future border negotiations with Syria.
“Israel has never claimed the Golan to be part of its sovereign jurisdiction,” said Baker. “That’s why in my opinion, the statement that was made was somewhat ill-advised.”
In reality, Israel has in effect already annexed the territory and any thought of returning it to Syria is deeply unpopular with Israelis. More than 20,000 Israeli settlers now live in settlements on the Golan, according to official Israeli statistics.
The territory, with its rugged terrain, open spaces and sweeping vistas of Syria and northern Israel, is a popular tourism spot that is home to high-end wineries, rustic restaurants and cattle farms. The native Druse population, who also number about 20,000 people, mingle freely with Israeli Jews and are eligible for Israeli citizenship.
The system in the Golan is part of a legal kaleidoscope that Israel has created since the 1967 war. Shortly after the war, it annexed east Jerusalem, home to the city’s most important holy sites, in a move that also has not been internationally recognized. Under interim peace accords, military rulings and special stipulations, West Bank settlements are subject to Israeli jurisdiction, while Palestinians are subject to a combination of their own municipal and family laws, as well as Israeli military law for security offenses.
In a statement this week, Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Emmanuel Nahshon accused the Security Council of “ignoring reality” with its criticism.
“With whom is Israel supposed to negotiate the future of the Golan — Islamic State? al-Qaeda? Hezbollah? The Iranian and Syrian forces that slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people?” he said. “The suggestion that Israel will withdraw from the Golan is not reasonable.”
Still, he acknowledged that the Golan Heights is not part of “Israel proper,” even if Israeli law is enforced there.
David Keyes, executive director of Advancing Human Rights (Courtesy)
David Keyes (Courtesy)
Netanyahu’s spokesman, David Keyes, said the prime minister’s comments “were a description of the reality on the ground,” and the Golan’s legal status has not changed.
“The territory must remain under Israeli control for a simple reason. When Syria ruled the Golan, it was used as a staging ground for attacking Israeli civilians. It was mined and crisscrossed with barbed wire. It was a place of war. In the nearly five decades since Israel liberated the Golan, it has been used for agriculture, tourism and great wine. It is now a place of peace,” Keyes said.
It remains unclear why Netanyahu decided to drag his Cabinet to the Golan, a three-hour trip from Jerusalem. It may have been a message to international negotiators not to forget Israeli interests as they try to end the Syrian war. It also may have been meant as a show of strength to domestic critics.
Moshe Maoz, an expert on Syria at Israel’s Hebrew University, said the prime minister’s tough stand was “an affront and chutzpah” to the international community.
“In my assessment, any government in Syria which will emerge after this mess will demand the Golan Heights,” he said.
Moshe Aarons writes in Haaretz:
@ Ted Belman:
The first step in Judah/Samaria should be to extend Israeli Law to all the Jewish Towns and Cities in the Blocks (e.g. Maleh Adumim, Ariel, Gush Etzion………….. etc.
This way you are annexing these Jewish places without the Arabs in Area C. This is a first step only.
My mistake. I had left out the word “not” from this sentence, “But extending Israeli law to Judea and Samaria would effectively annex such lands because they were not the lands of another party and in fact were part of the land of Israel.” It is now added.
@whatsa46 You are too concerned with IL being called an “occupier”. 4th Hague and 4th Geneva Conventions apply only to a “belligerent occupant” within the meaning of 4th Hague or an “occupying power” within the meaning of 4th Geneva, respectively. Mere “occupation” is not illegal nor immoral otherwise the Greeks who are occupying Greece, the Germans who are occupying Germany and the Italians who are occupying Italy would be illegal and immoral for doing so. I occupied my own house for 50 years and that was neither illegal nor immoral. You are doing nothing illegal nor immoral if you are occupying territory you have the right to occupy. Such a reading of these Conventions to say mere occupation is illegal is obviously incorrect. The Jewish People have had the right to occupy Judea and Samaria since the effectiveness of the Mandate and the right to self-determination when the conditions of the trust governing the trust res ( the collective rights to political self-determination in Palestine west of the Jordan) permitted the trust res to vest and the Jewish People to exercise legal dominion over these rights.
In 1967 the Jewish People “liberated” Judea and Samaria. These liberated territories are occupied by their liberators as Britain, the trustee originally appointed to defend the area for the beneficiaries, the Jewish People, resigned in 1948. Perfidious Albion not only did not defend the trust res for the beneficiaries, it helped the invaders capture it.
No annexation as an assertion of sovereignty by the Government of Israel is needed for the Jewish People to exercise sovereignty over Judea and Samaria. The claim of the Arab People, a genuine “people”, to political rights in this territory was implicitly rejected by Lord Curzon’s view of what occurred at San Remo. The Arabs have never set forth any fact relevant under international law to justify their claimed sovereignty. Calling the territory disputed, dignifies their claim. Their resorting to threats of violence, actual violence and fraud based on bogus claims under international law means that land for peace is giving in to extortion, not compromise. The WWI Allies expended much treasure and blood of their young men to win Syria, Mesopotamia and Palestine. They had won the right to determine the locus for the recognition of political rights in these territories. That decision is res judicata. It is not necessary to decide it again.
@ Salubrious:
IL is ONLY permitted to defend herself. Therefore it is understood that she cannot destroy the enemy once and for all. The Pal have no country to lose since they care less about a country. They believe in Islamic universalism. That is why formalizing J & S as legal part of Israel MAKE TOTAL SENSE. With time only the civilized Pal will stay and enjoy the benefits of a civilized world.
Israel is entitled to withdraw to defensible borders after returning some of the territory it won in 1967. It can’t have defensible borders if Syria can use the Golan Heights to shower Israel’s Jewish People with mortar and artillery fire as it has prior to 1967. Israel has already returned 90%+ of the territory it won in 1967.
Why not simply ignore the useless statements from various politicians regarding peace in Syria. They are only yanking Israels chain because Israel always reacts so miserably. Possession is so much better than begging. Keep it and play deaf.
The Golan is part and parcel of Israel.
Palestine, UTI POSSIDETIS JURIS, and the borders of IL by Bell and Kontorovich. Forthcoming Arizona Law Review.
The international community (more specifically the West) is a CONSTANT insult to the Jews and Israel. The UN actions are overwhelming evidence.